Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ist.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!hudson!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!qtlon!ist!jmc
From: jmc@ist.UUCP (John Collins)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C stack frame sizes
Message-ID: <275@ist.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 16:17:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ist.275
Posted: Thu Dec 20 16:17:17 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 00:44:33 EST
References: <18092@arizona.UUCP>, <6255@brl-tgr.ARPA> <4722@utzoo.UUCP> <264@ist.UUCP>, <1434@ritcv.UUCP>
Organization: Imperial Software Technology, London, England
Lines: 14

>The I/O buffers were declared as local variables in the main function....
>thus were on the stack.  Given the constraints imposed by the PDP-11
>MMU, this actually resulted in a net gain in useful data memory as
>compared to allocating buffers dynamically using sbrk.
>Mike Lutz

Yes - but that isn't the same as what I said. Fine if it is the main routine
but if you DON'T want a big stack, but early on you call (from main) a
routine which does, you eat up memory forever.
-- 
John Collins calling courtesy of ist
	Please reply to ...!mcvax!ist!inset!jmc
Phone: +44 727 57267
Snail: 47 Cedarwood Drive, St Albans, Herts, AL4 0DN, England