Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 18:50:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: the-candyden-of-code
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <uuhk12$3ceej$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <87edbtz43p.fsf@tudado.org>
 <types-20240401151149@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <20240401111552.00006ddc@gmail.com> <20240401134457.000067f2@gmail.com>
 <stack-20240401220727@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <20240401143042.000056e0@gmail.com> <zJGON.210616$hN14.93559@fx17.iad>
 <uuh8a1$39ilt$1@dont-email.me> <20240402084304.00001875@gmail.com>
 <65WON.122189$zqTf.16530@fx35.iad>
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:50:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b7679fc2773f20ec5b2192d045298ef";
	logging-data="3553747"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9wm5+FOKIye4Fwb2G0KNHw6WlrXJp78hqe8u9nzPYcg=="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TmHtWn3RKf3UCXmbROUo0DbWT0M=
X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]%
 b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx
 `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e
 ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA]<D
Bytes: 2716

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote at 16:09 this Tuesday (GMT):
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:30:09 -0000 (UTC)
>>candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> It still protects writing to memory outside that buffer, right?
>>> [snip]
>>
>>"Protecting memory" doesn't mean "no page fault," though, just that it
>>won't scribble all over some other process's memory.
>
> The regions each side of the stack are marked not-present.  This supports
> automatic stack expansion, within the resource limit for the stack on
> one side, and will produce a SIGSEGV or SIGBUS on the other end.
>
>
>> But I am curious
>>how universally various freenix distributions these days just let the
>>application segfault vs. using that as a cue to allocate additional
>>stack space; a quick test with WSL (Debian somethingorother) runs that
>>test without complaint, but I don't have a genuine *nix box to hand to
>>try it with.
>
> All linux will allocate space, up to the stack resource limit.


Interesting.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom