Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!dxb132 From: DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Mike Farren Tutorial. Message-ID: <91089.151122DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 30 Mar 91 20:11:21 GMT References: <20115@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Mar27.012717.11541@starnet.uucp> <1998@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Mar27.175514.25590@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <00670283123@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> Organization: Penn State University Lines: 17 In article <00670283123@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM>, elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) says: >to hose it. Times when you've said things like, "Exec needs 2K stacks >minimum per task" are perfect proof of that... Exec *DOES* need more stack >than your program needs for its own purposes, but that's only because when >task switch time comes around your task's registers, 68010/68020 processor >state, etc., are shoved onto the local stack. That data has to be stored >*SOMEWHERE*, and if it's not stored onto the stack, it'll have to be stored >in the task control structure somewhere. And 2K is a gross overestimate. If you make ANY operating system calls at all, you'd be a fool to allocate less than 4K for a stack. Otherwise you're gauarenteed to crash under 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 or whatever C= comes up with. (This is just my opinion, OK ?) -- Dan Babcock