Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:04:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 535 ************************************************** Thursday 07 April 2005 Number 535 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Python 2.4.1 EMX port released. : Andrew MacIntyre 2 Re: Python 2.4.1 EMX port released. : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:06:30 +1100 From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: Python 2.4.1 EMX port released. Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: >>The binary distribution has been built with a thread stack size of 128kB >>instead of the 64kB default in the source. > > BTW, does anybody know if bigger stack size has any bad influence on > memory consumption? I seem to remember something like the built-in size > just being the upper limit and a thread just using/allocating as much of > it as it needs. Does anyone know something from own experiments or contra- > dicting documentation? The EMX docs for _beginthread() say that the stack is fully committed, which I've taken at face value. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:10:25 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Python 2.4.1 EMX port released. Hi, > > BTW, does anybody know if bigger stack size has any bad influence on > > memory consumption? > > The EMX docs for _beginthread() say that the stack is fully committed, > which I've taken at face value. Thanks, seems like I was confusing this with something else (though I can't find what it was), thanks for the reminder... Regards, Stefan