Changing default stack size with MinGW/GCC?

**Viper187** · 03-22-2013

Ah hell. I realized that I was actually creating a temp copy of the huge var within a function as well. That would've been what would cause the overflow. Anyway, it's been reworked substantially.

Originally Posted by ledow

The other reason, of course, to not change stack size is that the stack size necessary is then another "hidden" piece of information, that's not in the code, that everyone who compiles it has to replicate. If you don't replicate it, the program will mysteriously crash and you'll have to debug. Whether that's your friend, your tutor, someone on the Internet or even yourself 10 years from now, that's going to cause problems for no good reason.

Well, it's in the makefile. Second, if you create a thread within the program, then it actually is in the code. Third, the program relies on win32API so it's not getting compiled on anything else for any logical reason.

**iMalc** · 03-22-2013

Originally Posted by Viper187

Why do I need to screw around using malloc (and free) on an array of structs that's ALWAYS the same size just because it's a little big? With everyone running systems with gigabytes of RAM, why is the stack still defaulted to like 8MB? That's what I want to know. Why add extra coding just to save on a little memory? My thinking has always been that malloc should only be necessary for handling things of dynamic size. Like allocating an array to load some random file that could be any size.

Simply because that's not what the stack is for.

It's like saying "why don't we make all vehicles the size of a bus and capable of transporting at least 30 people". It's because that's not what a car is for.

Thread: Changing default stack size with MinGW/GCC?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

Changing default font in Emacs

default stack size on modern Linux?

.exe size with MinGW

changing default code in dev c++?

Changing default unit in BCB 5