X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:30:19 -0500
From: "Charles Sandmann" <cwsdpmi AT earthlink DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <201304061704 DOT r36H4k48018021 AT delorie DOT com> <c46f36b4-f175-40b5-aeb9-2713a57fab95 AT googlegroups DOT com> <3728e704-b839-4ad6-998e-d3aab686b649 AT googlegroups DOT com> <Roidnc6h2rL7w-rMnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d AT earthlink DOT com> <12d60e38-9778-4463-b914-396c2a62273f AT googlegroups DOT com> <FuydnZF554lmcgfMnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d AT earthlink DOT com> <79342766-b269-46cb-837a-9d118f63752f AT googlegroups DOT com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.23.2 - stack size
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:30:00 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <xbOdncQHBLc2XwPMnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 23
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.136.221
X-Trace: sv3-AuzPu8CBZ+SS3E9ZOtqwczhbzpHJEHb/3M9Gbg1Kd3KOmU3o5hkgggr1LMuaNkhMbiPJ24iGfrtaUok!jk4vUcVYwB9pd0OF217/8XKvQ6E+72FjSKyyf9C4g0pFOLll6vhn58ai9w4loy6frBum6mozeIg8!rfkebPrrlx2mHueX7kgTbrX9hvqXBcc4
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2602
X-Original-Bytes: 2541
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>"RayeR" <glaux AT centrum DOT cz> wrote in message 
>news:79342766-b269-46cb-837a-9d118f63752f AT googlegroups DOT com...
>But even if we don't have ability of grow down stac it could be possible to 
>allocate dynamic-sized block at startup.
>Eg. to set min and max limits where the current value could vary according 
>to amount of available RAM.
>So e.g. under plain DOS where all belongs to us we could allocate, say, 
>10MB of 256MB,
>20MB of 512MB... 40MB of 2GB for stack or so.
>Could be better that one fixed value for wide range HW from 386 with 4MB up 
>to icore with 4GB... :)

This could be done (say use a % of the memory) - which will also have its 
flaws.  Most of my applications have well
defined stack usage and use malloc() for storage - so you would take away 
available memory from those apps.  So we
would need a new convention (to be able to set absolute size or relative 
size).  Then you have issues basing this
on physical or real memory (many DPMI providers lie about this).  The source 
is out there, so someone just needs
to be motivated enough to do it.