[PD] What exactly is a "stack overflow" ?

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:45 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> ilya .d wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:42:44PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
> >> I know we like to pretend this is "feature", but isn't it time to treat it
> >> as a bug?
> > 
> 
> > but havind a simple C progarmm in for(;;) doesn't cause much trouble,
> > SIGINT usualy kills it ..
> 
> Pd is _is_ a simple C programm, and [bang(->[until] does something very 
> similar to for(;;);
> 
> > may be some protection should be considered for [bang(--[until],
> > so it doesn't cause the system such a DoS in this way..  i haven't actually tested this thing yet ..
> > is it really true , or somehow you can kill pd when it get in such a loop ?
> 
> that is what i was trying to say (too): it doesn't hang here.
> it might hang the system, if Pd is running with realtime-priorities.
> (hey this is what you asked for when turning on rt-priorities)

hm... i still can kill pd, although i am running it with -rt. it just
might take me two minutes to kill it. i am not sure, if this actually
the main purpose of pd-watchdog, but whenever i see the message
'pd-watchdog: signaling pd', i have a few ms of free cpu time to move
the mouse pointer and/or hit some keys. after a few watchdog interrupts
i am usuably able to get the xterm, where pd is running in, into focus,
so that i can press ctl-c and kill pd.

roman



	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de