[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:59:28 +0200 (CEST) |
>
> Performance should not trump safety and correctness.
Absolutely right, yet everybody has a different perception of what
performance, safety and correctness means. Segfaulting on
_stack-overflow_ is not something that I'd call "incorrect" or "unsafe"
- I'd call it "inconvenient" and it may be the case that handling the
overflow gracefully isn't such a big deal at all. On the other hand,
an extremely deep recursion could in such a case (stack checks
everywhere) bring the machine to a halt due to excessive thrashing. I
don't know whether I'd perhaps prefer the segfault in such a situation...
cheers,
felix
- [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Marc Feeley, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, John Cowan, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Marc Feeley, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth,
Felix <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Marc Feeley, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Shinn, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Matthew Flatt, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, John Cowan, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Shinn, 2012/07/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, cjtenny, 2012/07/12
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Queiroz, 2012/07/12
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Shinn, 2012/07/12
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Queiroz, 2012/07/12
- Re: [Chicken-users] Unbounded stack growth, Alex Shinn, 2012/07/12