X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=jSZtPACRA3HOBzfa7doKYeCB+VrGjtVi1kDX2161X2W
	720EkLbZ6+xeSMcerXpojRumcgPCHZzYABe5OXgHQI53RgHKmhqgIo9YDlRbVC5d
	Y3WjZbKoqHnG4jUn7HzBW/16L9n86VUndWXnnEPvKabGMSfyuOPQtw0c3ZEvEgKw
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=qzuAx6msyxwz7EVNqVKISQhcqoI=; b=mu5oM46AJzXqT9rOK
	MX/gzIM8Ed9U73PvlZ/q4niTuJSatyoHE6++0L2cqCakRyU1S9y64uH62Q5KrlE7
	8m3O6w+ceOMj033ZzWDFoQpyUU7rOu+z0NuiK/XqURFL+PazrIJVoln5cwcWbKIq
	FWxEBJ3nIxmJCU+EM1uPRCz2sA=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Message-ID:	<5211FBB6.6070108@cs.utoronto.ca>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:04:22 -0400
From:	Ryan Johnson <ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Stack size on 64-bit Cygwin
References:	<520E905A DOT 409 AT cornell DOT edu> <20130819093242 DOT GB18757 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5211F83A DOT 30901 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
In-Reply-To:	<5211F83A.30901@cs.utoronto.ca>

On 19/08/2013 6:49 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> On 19/08/2013 5:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 16 16:49, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> The problem that has been discussed at length in the thread "64-bit
>>> emacs crashes a lot" appears to have been solved on the emacs-devel
>>> list.  (I say "appears to" because I'm waiting for Ryan to confirm
>>> this.)  The problem went away for me when I built emacs with
>>> 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'.  I'm wondering if it's just that
>>> emacs needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on
>>> 64-bit Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
>>>
>>> I noticed that ulimit -s gives 2025 on both 32-bit Cygwin and 64-bit
>>> Cygwin.  Shouldn't 64-bit applications need a larger stack than
>>> 32-bit applications in general?
>>  From my POV, if you have a stack-active application, just add the
>> aforementioned --stack linker option, or call peflags -x after the
>> build.  The latter can be done any time
> FYI, I just tried upping the stack size on /usr/bin/emacs-nox, but it 
> still crashes. Most likely because the damage was already done during 
> bootstrap, when it has much larger memory requirements than normal.
>
> Still no crashes so far in the version I linked with --stack, though.
>
> One thing I don't understand, though: shouldn't a stack overflow 
> normally manifest as a seg fault when trying to access the invalid 
> addresses, rather than silent memory corruption?
>
> However, /proc/pid/maps for emacs shows:
>> 00010000-00020000 rw-s 00000000 0000:0000 0                   [win 
>> heap 1 default shared]
>> 00020000-00030000 rw-s 00000000 0000:0000 0 [win heap 2 default shared]
>> 00030000-001E4000 ===p 00000000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
>> 001E4000-001E6000 rw-g 001B4000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
>> 001E6000-00230000 rw-p 001B6000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
> GDB reports that thread 4896 is the main thread... so I guess Windows 
> doesn't reserve a red zone around its stack, but instead chooses to 
> place the main thread stack right next to the fully-mapped global 
> shared heap to maximize the potential for Fun?

Some googling turns up
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.hotspot.runtime.devel/7706
> Windows only uses reserved but only partially committed memory for its stacks. In order to detect when to
> commit more stack, it installs  a one-shot guard page (btw the same type of guard page that is used for the
> hotspot yellow and red zone) right at the edge of the currently commited stack zone. When a thread accesses
> this guard page an exception is thrown which Windows catches internally, commits more stack and
> re-establishes the one-shot guard page at the new edge of the commited zone. When Windows detects such an
> exception inside the _last 4 pages_ of a stack (I couldn't find any documentation for that on MSDN, I found
> this value from manually testing on several Windows machines with 4k stack pages) it throws a STACK_OVERFLOW_EXCEPTION.
So maybe emacs just had the incredibly bad luck to alloca() a large 
buffer right at end-of-stack and then somehow managed to skip over the 4 
guard pages when accessing it?

Very strange...
>
> Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -