So you're saying that other Lisp implementations on Linux/Debian/Ubuntu have
the same problem? or pay a heavy efficiency price because they solve it?
>From my perspective at least, clean recovery from stack overflow is a basic
correctness issue and not one that I want to trade off for efficiency.
-s
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Steve Haflich <smh at franz.com> wrote:
> Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, R Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>
> BTW, the stack overflow issue is as far as I can tell completely
> orthogonal to the OS type; it is (or was, if it
> has in fact been fixed) a Lisp implementation (ECL) problem.
>
> Don't be too sure about this. My experience is that reliable
> stack-overflow detection even within a single Lisp implementation is
> very dependent on the was the particular low-level stuff in the OS
> maintains guard pages. Not all processors/memory architectures do as
> good job as one desires, and some extreme kinds of stack overflow are
> very hard for the Lisp implementation to field reliably, at least
> without slowing the routine linkage to make checking more reliable.
>