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: 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