ISO C is increasingly moronic

Re:ISO C is increasingly moronic by phkamp on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @04:30PM (#3375270)

Please give an example of an implementation of this thread API where having the ability to specify the desired stacksize would "be meaningless" ?

Even on 64bit machines you can and will have memory fragmentation when you approach a million threads.

PS: A bad analogy is like a wet screwdriver.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISO C is increasingly moronic by forgotusername on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @04:37PM (#3375291)

1) http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks

> This is currently implemented for 32-bit and 64-bit x86 targets running GNU/Linux in gcc 4.6.0 and later. For full functionality you must be using the gold linker, which you can get by building binutils 2.21 or later with --enable-gold.

2) You're still conflating heap and stack.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISO C is increasingly moronic by phkamp on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @04:42PM (#3375307)

Too bad it is not part of the ABI specification on any known platform, so if you call a library function compiled without this magic compiler you're totally screwed.

But an interesting research project, I'll grant you that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISO C is increasingly moronic by mikeash on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @05:37PM (#3375510)

There's a section in that link which details how they handle calls to libraries that aren't aware of what's going on. Sounds like it works just fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISO C is increasingly moronic by nitrogen on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @05:53PM (#3375563)

As I'm sure you are aware, there are C compilers for Harvard architecture machines with fixed-sized call stacks.

[ Parent | on HN ]