Re: segmentation fault with {1..1234567}

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 6,  7:30pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: segmentation fault with {1..1234567}
}
} On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:16:09 -0700
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > IIRC the use of VARARR() was introduced in order to more evenly split the
} > memory use between the heap and the stack on systems that had limited RAM.
} > Obviously more recent hardware is likely to have divided process address
} > space differently, and this former optimization has become a liability.
} 
} Well, all I can say is that without the following change it crashes on
} my system (where I have not tweaked any limits) and with the following
} change it doesn't.
} 
} Maybe I'm just selfish but I prefer the latter.

I do not disagree.

The question is, do we fix this one instance (your patch), do we redefine
VARARR() [possibly conditionally] to change all the usages at once, or do
we individually evaluate the 50-odd uses of VARARR()?

What constitutes "a lot" to avoid using alloca() upon?