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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,88c97d669795535a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: What task storage_size to use? Date: 1997/11/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 292012530 References: <3472A748.213DF2CA@intermetrics.com> <3.0.1.32.19971121191820.00b96cf0@spectre.mitre.org> <34785EC5.740B76B0@intermetrics.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-11-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34785EC5.740B76B0@intermetrics.com>, Michael Rowley wrote: >Another approach that I am thinking of using is to create my own >Storage_Pool for the task access type, which would allocate one more >page than necessary for the task and write protect the extra page. Then >if there is a page fault on that page I would know that I am within one >page of running out of stack space, and then try to recover gracefully. I don't get it. Why don't you just catch Storage_Error? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271