From: wagray AT taz DOT dra DOT hmg DOT gb (Walter Gray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: array index problem
Date: 8 Jun 1998 11:35:58 GMT
Organization: Defence Research Agency
Message-ID: <6lgiau$78m$2@trog.dra.hmg.gb>
References: <19980605232649 DOT AAA4158 AT ppp105 DOT cartsys DOT com>
Reply-To: wagray AT taz DOT dra DOT hmg DOT gb
NNTP-Posting-Host: taz.dra.hmg.gb
Lines: 26
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <19980605232649 DOT AAA4158 AT ppp105 DOT cartsys DOT com>, Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com> writes:
 :At 02:08  6/5/1998 -0400, John S. Fine wrote:
 :>I have seen some things that seem to indicate there may be a limit
 :>on the increment by which the stack can grow, even when it doesn't
 :>overflow its full limit.  (Does anyone more knowledgable want to
 :>comment on that one?)  A quarter Mb is an unusually large
 :>increment to grow a stack.
 :
 :The stack is only 256K by default, so allocating that much would quite
 :likely overflow the stack. (Some of it is already used, of course.) AFAIK,
 :there is no limit on how quickly you allocate on the stack, as long as you
 :don't overflow it. FAQ section 15.9 tells how you can make the stack larger.
 :(Unfortunately, misfeatures of DPMI prevent it from growing automatically,
 :like on most Unix systems.)
 :


My thanks to all who answered. I've never had to worry about stacks
before. PC programming seems to be more 'down & dirty' than anything
I have done up to now :)



Walter

Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for this stuff.