[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stack overflow! (fwd)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (CLISP mail list)
- Subject: Re: Stack overflow! (fwd)
- From: email@example.com.OZ.AU (Maureen Philomena MOLLOY)
- Date: Fri, 27 May 94 14:58:40 EST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (Maureen Philomena MOLLOY)
> > Are the two are related?
> I am 90% sure, because I once ported another package to CLISP (I don't
> recall which one), it redefined the type CONDITION as well and produced
> a stack overflow as well.
> > The first seems to be a compile time warning that the code may
> > not do what CLISP expects at run time.
> The compiler must execute, not only compile, DEFTYPE and DEFSTRUCT forms.
> The bad effects therefore already occur at compile time.
> > is it simply a matter of enlarging the stack?
> Certainly not. You must have really really deep recurrence to need a larger
> Bruno Haible
By the look of it we will have to look at what the difference is between
the CLISP CONDITION and the redefined CONDITION.
Thanks for the help.