From: Csaba Henk <csaba@..._for_avoiding_spam.org>
Date: 2005-03-19T06:54:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Maximum stack depth

On 2005-03-18, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> "vruz" <horacio.lopez@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:6b809bd8050317072128a96c1f@mail.gmail.com...
>> > Is it just me, or does a stack limited to less than 1000 levels of
>> > recursion seem... crippled?
>>
>> 1891 levels in my old redhat linux 7.3 box, ruby 1.8.2 built from source
>
> Just to add another number:
>
> 09:49:43 [source]: ruby -e 'def t(i) p i;t(i+1) end;t 0'
> ...
> 13280
> 13281
> 13282
> 13283
> -e:1:in `p': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
>         from -e:1:in `t'
>         from -e:1:in `t'

In my ruby installations under gentoo, there is no "stack level too
deep", ruby just eats up all memory and then the OS gracefully kills
it (it happens when I don't link it against pthread).

It seems that function data is stored on the heap. Is it possible? Under
what circumstances can this phenomenon -- ie., that ruby doesn't runs
out of stack upon a deep recursion -- occur (OS, kernel (OS, compilation
options, compilation options, ...) ?

Csaba