From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200212311450.gBVEorP17093@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: stubify
In-Reply-To: <3E11788B.4B1EE612@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> "from Richard Dawe at
 Dec 31, 2002 10:59:23 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:50:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Richard Dawe:
> ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:
> [snip]
> > Remember I talked about a stack size option to stubify? I've added
> > code to get an environment variable's value to choose the stack
> > size. This way those that do want a big stack size can set it and it
> > won't affect us that doesn't want it, except when we run programs
> > somebody else built. (Or possibly the other way round.)
> 
> How about a command-line argument to set stack size? Then people/we can modify
> the gcc specs file to increase the stack size for all their programs, if they
> want.

Yes, that was my(?) original idea. However I concluded that messing
with the spec file with it's somewhat cumbersome syntax wouldn't do
anyone a service. Setting an environment variable is much safer.


Right,

						MartinS