Re: [PATCH] Set hard limit on delta chain depth
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 6, 2011, 12:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8BNzMbFcUpKq3vWqmevJeuPxZo+sB7ZxL5BTK_ojYZVjg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPQNSbOvVkSFAE32hXoZEZeHqg-+nHc93uGytfCPQMicu0uVg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to make the limit a config option rather >>> than a hard-coded value of 128 (which seems arbitrary to me)? After >>> all, different platforms have different stack-limitations... >> >> Then it'd make more sense to make a compile time config based on >> platform. > > Can how much stack each recursion use be calculated at compile-time? > If so, I agree with you.
No, but at least we know default stack size of each platform and can make pretty good limit based on that.
Show 10 quoted lines
>> We could have a config option that can override the default, >> but I really don't see the point of making long delta chains. > > Aha, I figured you _did_ see a point in this, because 128 seemed > excessive to me already. I was thinking more that some platforms can > have a much smaller stack than (I would expect to) fit in 128 > recursions (I've worked relatively recently with platforms with as > small as a static 2k stack per process), so you might not be fixing > the issue for such platforms. But that's not really your > responsibility either ;)
Ah, I was thinking of an option that extends the limit, not shortens it. Yes it makes sense in this case.
-- Duy