Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #239

Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C?

From James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, comp.os.os2.programmer.misc
Subject Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C?
Date 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <iqpteg$ba2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <c8e8e850-aa1a-4dd3-9f58-94ed708d25a8@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <iq50gu$46r$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T160558.P4093.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <iqp4od$1mk$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T215017.P4453.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 05/15/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
...
> not be doing so.  Nor would you be bringing up as problems things that 
> simply aren't the case outwith the narrow confines of Unix and Linux.  

"outwith" => "outside"?

If it's a problem for any fully conforming versions of C, it's a problem
my code should, ideally, be able to deal with properly, regardless of
whether there's other fully conforming versions where it is not.

> And indeed, I quote you from a couple of messages back:
> 
>> My own programs are allowed to assume [...] a correspondingly early 
>> version of POSIX, [...]
>>
> There's that narrow horizon right there, in your very own words.

What I'm allowed to assume for the project I'm working on, and what I'm
willing to assume in general, are two very different things.

Even on this particular project, my code actually relies very little
upon that particular assumption. That's possible primarily because one
of the third-party libraries I'm required to use hides a lot of the
implementation-specific details within it's own code. Because there's no
requirement that my code operate on non-POSIX platforms, I could not get
permission to spend any significant amount of time making sure that it
did; but if that requirement were changed, I doubt that my own code
would require many fixes.

A very small portion of my code relies upon the POSIX guarantee that
CHAR_BITS==8; most of it is carefully written to avoid making that
assumption. Those five programs rely upon that guarantee in order to
parse some data structures. If I could no longer rely upon POSIX, that
would be the most difficult part to fix.
-- 
James Kuyper

Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 17:05 +0100
  Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 14:07 -0400
    Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 22:49 +0100
      Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
      Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-16 11:10 +0100
  Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> - 2011-05-16 08:04 +0000

csiph-web