Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960808192356.006b9524@maine.maine.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:23:56 -0400
To: quake-c@seal-industries.com
From: Derrick <dslope51@maine.maine.edu>
Subject: Carmark on Stack Size and impulses
I wrote to John Carmack about Stack size and impulses, heres his reply:
Return-Path: <johnc@IDNEWT.IDSOFTWARE.COM>
X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 1.0)
From: John Carmack <johnc@idnewt.idsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 12:14:26 -0500
To: Derrick <dslope51@maine.maine.edu>
Subject: Re: Quake-C Stack Size
References: <1.5.4.32.19960808170601.006a0ab8@maine.maine.edu>
You wrote:
> Hi, I know you're a busy man, but I've looked everywhere for info
> on this, but to no avail. I'm having some trouble with stack
> overflows, Could you tell me how big the stack is, and if there is
> a function, or is there any way to implement one in quake-c that
> would return the size of the stack so that a function could be
> aborted if the stack got too large.
> Also, (I realize that I don't know all the implications of what I
> am asking) could I humbly sugest making the stack bigger in a
> future ver. release.
There is space reserved for 8k of variables, but the design of qc (which
wasn't originally recursive!) makes it waste a lot of that on saving
unneeded temporaries.
I may be able to increase it a bit, but we are very tight on memory on 8 meg
systems right now.
> Also, we quake-c people are running out of
> impulses, I'd love to see the number of available impules incresed
> to 65535 rather that the present 256.
Are you serious? I'm a bit shocked.... I will see if I can increase it, hough.
John Carmack
Derrick!
mailto:dslope51@maine.maine.edu
The Quake-C Reference Page: http://136.165.243.183/~frodo/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean.
Albert Einstein