Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: filling area by color atack safety
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:51:21 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <86bk6xk2li.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <ut3669$21eur$1@i2pn2.org> <ut4020$2s8ov$1@dont-email.me> <87wmq2jn7s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ut4ba7$2uits$1@dont-email.me> <87frwpje2b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ut6o5l$3h3cb$3@dont-email.me> <FUBLN.90799$Wbff.11445@fx37.iad> <86sf0gkcnj.fsf@linuxsc.com> <Uk0MN.450379$yEgf.443209@fx09.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:51:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5dfda3fb31f95cd0acc189d3147c50da"; logging-data="145569"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AfkAEQNBGWuKWCRXCUXFwXjxG0KncVME="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q3msS1ss3tlKGuMJQ+N0Lf8AaG0= sha1:ewQQXF3s7MDLwj4o6ygjK9u7jPM=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:384080

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The convetional wisdom is the opposite, But here, conventional wisdom
>>>>> fails.  Because heaps are unlimited while stacks are not.
>>>
>>> That's not actually true.   The size of both are bounded, yes.
>>>
>>> It's certainly possible (in POSIX, anyway) for the stack bounds
>>> to be unlimited (given sufficient real memory and/or backing
>>> store) and the heap size to be bounded.   See 'setrlimit'.
>>
>> The sizes of both heaps and stacks are bounded, because
>> pointers have a fixed number of bits.  Certainly these
>> sizes can be very very large, but they are not unbounded.
>
> I was referring to the term of art used in POSIX, where
> unlimited simply means that the operating system doesn't
> limit them [.. elaboration ..]

The earlier sentence was confusing, as the sentence construction
suggested "unlimited" was a general term rather than one with a
specific meaning in POSIX.  In any case thank you for the
education.