I have a program where I’m getting a Stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
exception
I did not expect this, and I would prefer to fix it by increasing the
stack, rather than changing the program…
Is this possible?
I think this exception is quite common, but was not able to google a
solution.
Jesper
Jesper Olsen wrote:
I have a program where I’m getting a Stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
exceptionI did not expect this, and I would prefer to fix it by increasing the
stack, rather than changing the program…Is this possible?
I think this exception is quite common, but was not able to google a
solution.Jesper
What’s your OS? BTW, it is a known issue with Mac OS X where in most
cases you must increase the default stack size.
Gennady.
Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com wrote in message news:4005BB60.70009@tonesoft.com…
Jesper Olsen wrote:
I have a program where I’m getting a Stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
exceptionI did not expect this, and I would prefer to fix it by increasing the
stack, rather than changing the program…Is this possible?
I think this exception is quite common, but was not able to google a
solution.Jesper
What’s your OS? BTW, it is a known issue with Mac OS X where in most
cases you must increase the default stack size.
How?
Gennady.
It happens both with
Jesper
Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com wrote in message
news:4005BB60.70009@tonesoft.com…Jesper Olsen wrote:
I have a program where I’m getting a Stack level too deep
(SystemStackError)
exceptionI did not expect this, and I would prefer to fix it by increasing the
stack, rather than changing the program…Is this possible?
I think this exception is quite common, but was not able to google a
solution.Jesper
What’s your OS? BTW, it is a known issue with Mac OS X where in most
cases you must increase the default stack size.How?
In bash, “ulimit -s” shows the current stack size in kbytes (defaults
to 8192 in Mac OS X, really low). To change it issue “ulimit -s
”.
The command may be different for other shells. You may put this command
in /etc/profile to be set every time a user logs in.
Gennady.
It happens both with
- Ruby 1.6.8 on BSD Unix
- Ruby 1.8.0 on Win2000
The above command will work for BSD Unix too. I do not know how to do
it for Win2000.
Are you sure that there’s no actual problem with your program? It may
really be run-away in recursion, so increasing the stack size will only
make the problem happen somewhat later.
Jesper
Sincerely,
Gennady Bystritsky
On Jan 14, 2004, at 23:31, Jesper Olsen wrote:
“Gennady” gfb@tonesoft.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:292FAB16-4733-11D8-95BE-0003939AEA24@tonesoft.com…
Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com wrote in message
news:4005BB60.70009@tonesoft.com…Jesper Olsen wrote:
I have a program where I’m getting a Stack level too deep
(SystemStackError)
exceptionI did not expect this, and I would prefer to fix it by increasing
the
stack, rather than changing the program…Is this possible?
I think this exception is quite common, but was not able to google a
solution.Jesper
What’s your OS? BTW, it is a known issue with Mac OS X where in most
cases you must increase the default stack size.How?
In bash, “ulimit -s” shows the current stack size in kbytes (defaults
to 8192 in Mac OS X, really low). To change it issue “ulimit -s
”.The command may be different for other shells. You may put this command
in /etc/profile to be set every time a user logs in.Gennady.
It happens both with
- Ruby 1.6.8 on BSD Unix
- Ruby 1.8.0 on Win2000
The above command will work for BSD Unix too. I do not know how to do
it for Win2000.Are you sure that there’s no actual problem with your program? It may
really be run-away in recursion, so increasing the stack size will only
make the problem happen somewhat later.
Hm. On cygwin this happens:
10:15:30 [ContentReporter_BRANCH]: cat /c/temp/ruby/ulimit.sh
#!/bin/bash -f
ruby -e ‘def t(i);p i;t(i+1);end;t(0)’
ulimit -s
This means that a stack size of approx 2MB suffices only for 13000+ stack
levels. IOW about 157 bytes per stack frame.
Unfortunately this can’t be changed on cygwin:
10:16:06 [ContentReporter_BRANCH]: ulimit -s 4096
bash: ulimit: stack size: cannot modify limit: Invalid argument
10:18:19 [ContentReporter_BRANCH]: ulimit -S -s 4096
bash: ulimit: stack size: cannot modify limit: Invalid argument
10:18:23 [ContentReporter_BRANCH]: ulimit -H -s 4096
bash: ulimit: stack size: cannot modify limit: Invalid argument
I’ve always felt that Ruby is not too comfortable with recursion…
Cheers
robert
On Jan 14, 2004, at 23:31, Jesper Olsen wrote:
Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com wrote in message :
What’s your OS? BTW, it is a known issue with Mac OS X where in most
cases you must increase the default stack size.How?
In bash, “ulimit -s” shows the current stack size in kbytes (defaults
to 8192 in Mac OS X, really low). To change it issue “ulimit -s
”.
Sincerely,
Gennady Bystritsky
Thanks Gennady - that helped. (Mine was 4096)
Cheers
Jesper
on a sidenote, someone I know has the same max stack size as me
(8192), and with slightly different versions of 1.8.1, on debian he’s
got a SystemStackError calculating ackermann(3,7), while I can even
calculate ackermann(3,8).
I’m not a unix guru, may be possible that there are other things to
look for?
the ackermann implementation is:
def ackermann(m, n)
if m == 0
n + 1
elsif n == 0
ack(m - 1, 1)
else
ack(m - 1, ack(m, n - 1))
end
end
il Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:18:17 +0900, Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com ha scritto::
On Jan 14, 2004, at 23:31, Jesper Olsen wrote:
In bash, “ulimit -s” shows the current stack size in kbytes (defaults
to 8192 in Mac OS X, really low). To change it issue “ulimit -s
”.
gabriele renzi surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it wrote in message news:tg7e00hfutku40nsrv2jubklmma91v712m@4ax.com…
il Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:18:17 +0900, Gennady gfb@tonesoft.com ha
scritto::
I had the same problem with stacksize too low on a MAC OS X,
running the 3n+1 problem. It would go till the number in the 30s
where there are many iterations, then give me the stacksize
error. Increasing the stacksize solved the problem.
Van