From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,de85c452b42b049 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.236.170 with SMTP id uv10mr3641424pbc.4.1333872583506; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni32031pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: tonyg Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Tasking, AWS and segmentation faults Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <6836193.1453.1333872583121.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbue17> References: <12873826.360.1333555697441.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhc14> <4f7caeb8$0$6640$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4f7dcf53$0$21452$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <4f7dd3ca$0$21488$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.100.29.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1333872583 19297 127.0.0.1 (8 Apr 2012 08:09:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 08:09:43 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=94.100.29.172; posting-account=28F2IwkAAACL1Z5nRC-dE7zuvWdbWC7P User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-04-08T01:09:43-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, 5 April 2012 19:30:36 UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 04/05/2012 10:18 AM, Pascal Obry wrote: > > > > There is a procedure named Line_Stack_Size in AWS.Config.Set. >=20 > Right. I wasn't clear what that set. >=20 > --=20 > Jeff Carter > "To Err is human, to really screw up, you need C++!" > St=E9phane Richard > 63 I think Pascal has the way I should be using. Though the pointer thing work= ed well too. Some else at a linux user group meeting pointed out very reasnably that my= code to use 86400 records was probably a little dubious and I'm taking ano= ther look at this. Thing was processing speeds are so high now that this ma= kes me lazy!