Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.unix
Subject: Re: max size of automatic arrays?
Message-ID: <639@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 20:50:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.639
Posted: Fri Dec 13 20:50:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 23:58:20 EST
References: <627@ttrdc.UUCP> <1126@lll-crg.ARpA>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.lang.c:7400 net.unix:6628

Just a quick thanks to all those on the net who posted and mailed answers
to my question.  It is now apparent that in a sense automatic variables are
"illegal" stack references which the system stretches the stack to honor up
to some limit.  I now note that the straw that broke the camel's back, so to
speak, was the write() call made in the program (that is, if I did not use
any of the locations in humongous[] and didn't call any functions [how boring]
I was safe).
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy