Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: [opinion] javac's default stack space Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 23:19:26 +0100 Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: individual.net eO7ohx7RiDsDFnHqvejnOArs+CtRe4L++6E4FBsChMEwc50hM= Cancel-Lock: sha1:5/vbfW9R/3qYJR2TcQQcmcTZsDA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:27732 On 03/10/2014 10:02 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: >> On 09.03.2014 15:25, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>> Has anyone else run into javac's default stack size limit? >> Never. > > Just to be sure: are you also working with a *32bit* install of > Oracle's Java 1.7? (*) Both - even on the same source. I also once in a while compile with=20 Java 6 (32 and 64 bit). And in the past I almost exclusively used Java=20 5 and 6 32 bit versions. I cannot recall any instance where a stack=20 overflow during compilation happened in javac. Maybe it's not your Java = but the OS default for stack size. >>> Does anyone else have any insight about what features of >>> Java sources are likely culprits for stack usage peaks? >> Can't you identify that from the source where it bails out? > > With the appropriate option the problem itself has vanished, > so I'm probably not going to invest much more time into it. Too bad you are not so curios. :-) > If there is indeed any academic interest for research (or if I > find I can't sleep well until I research it further), then I'll > place some errors in the code, and trace compilation progress. > If =CE=99 actually find the sore spot I'd post a followup, but don't > hold your breath... ;) > > Thanks for your answer. You're welcome. Kind regards robert