Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior?

From	Manfred <noname@add.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior?
Date	2021-12-13 17:23 +0100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<sp7s1s$g9s$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<f5624610-cbe0-4e27-9f52-f4a900172c89n@googlegroups.com> <sp61ti$phb$1@dont-email.me> <sp6mqk$uob$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/13/2021 6:48 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>> No. Stack overflow is arguably the least specified behavior of them all.
>> The stack size is extremely limited (few MB), compared to the RAM
>> amounts current computers have (tens of GB). There is no
>> standard-defined way to detect stack overflow, not to speak about
>> handling it.
> 
> That made me think: Why has neither the C nor the C++ standardization
> committees ever thought of adding a standard library utility to get
> the current amount of free stack space?

The more general answer is that the standard (both C and C++) describes 
the behavior of an "abstract machine", and the requirement for actual 
conformant implementations is to produce the same "observable behavior" 
as the abstract machine.
The standard does not even mandate a stack [*]; it specifies the 
language rules for function calls, scope, local variables etc. all of 
which is commonly implemented via a memory stack, but that's the 
implementation, not the abstract machine.
The standard then connects back to the real world in Appendix B, where 
it says that limitations of finite systems may result in program 
constraints that should be documented by the implementation.
In this perspective such constraints fall under the "implementation 
defined" category.

> 
> Sure, perhaps in some operating systems this isn't something that
> programs can get, but the function in question could be optional in
> that sense. For example it could return -1 to indicate "this operation
> is not supported", else a non-negative value to indicate the amount
> of free stack space. This could give programs at least the opportunity
> to gracefully do something if running out of stack space. I think this
> could be useful especially in programs that need to be as stable and
> secure as possible.
> 
> (In fact, getting the amount of free (physical) RAM available to the
> process could also be useful, for similar reasons. It could behave
> in the same way: -1 if the operation is for some reason not supported,
> else the amount of free RAM (not counting swap).)

[*] The standard talks a.o. about "stack unwinding", thus referring to 
the common concept of a stack, but only to describe the process of 
destructing objects with automatic storage when leaving their scope. So, 
it's a concept related with scoping and lifetime, not with the stack 
memory structure.

Thread

Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-12 00:42 -0800
  Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-12 09:52 +0100
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-12-12 12:59 -0800
  Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-13 01:51 +0200
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-12-13 05:48 +0000
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-12-13 10:44 +0100
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 04:44 -0800
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-13 07:47 -0500
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:32 +0100
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-14 07:49 -0500
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-14 14:23 +0000
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 16:16 +0100
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 12:13 -0500
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-13 12:05 -0800
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 17:11 -0800
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 19:00 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-13 23:03 -0800
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:33 +0100
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-14 09:13 +0100
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-12-14 10:09 +0000
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-14 16:14 +0000
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 15:23 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-14 16:10 +0000
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 17:38 +0100
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-14 17:09 +0000
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 18:39 +0100
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 11:01 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 10:52 -0800
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-14 20:15 +0100
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-14 07:59 -0500
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 16:19 +0100
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-14 11:33 -0500
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-13 17:23 +0100
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2021-12-15 23:27 +0000
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-16 08:37 +0100
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 14:16 -0800
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:07 -0800
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 05:53 -0800
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 08:34 -0800
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 12:17 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 13:38 -0800
                Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 14:15 -0800
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 20:10 -0800
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-16 14:14 -0800
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 20:20 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-17 08:46 -0800
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-14 10:32 +0200
        Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 07:42 -0800
          Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-12-17 01:07 +0000
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-17 01:28 +0000
            Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 19:54 -0800
              Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-12-17 10:06 +0000
  Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-13 17:08 +0100
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 13:50 -0800
      Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-14 16:32 +0100
  Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 13:13 -0800
  Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:55 -0800
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:58 -0800
    Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 01:41 -0800

csiph-web