From:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Fixed stack size?
Date:	25 Jul 1999 10:39:19 GMT
Organization:	University of Lulea, Sweden
Message-ID:	<7nepgn$34o$2@news.luth.se>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990725131953 DOT 6438B-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	queeg.ludd.luth.se
X-Newsreader:	TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Lines:	29
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il) wrote:
: 
: On 25 Jul 1999, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
: 
: > Ah... But why isn't it placed as high as possible so it can grow down
: > (as it usually does in Un*x)?
: 
: That was tried in v1.x, and the result was that -fomit-frame-pointer 
: pointer was broken.  The problem is that a special expand-down stack 
: segment ties up the BP register, and you cannot use it as a GP register 
: anymore.

Hmm.  I wonder how Linux handles this?

: If you are willing to have the stack be part of the same segment as .data,
: bss and the heap, then you cannot place it ``as high as possible'', 
: since that would mean your initial address space will be too large (it 
: has to map in the high addresses), and you lose some of the memory 
: protection.

Welllll... If the pages is unmapped shouldn't the DPMI server realise
that a pointer that is outside the allocated amount of memory should
result in SIGSEGV? (Knowing how lousy the WINDOZE server is, I suppose
it doesn't do this, right?)


Kokkonen, Sinfonia da camera,

							MartinS

- Raw text -