Re: Error: "could not understand bounds information on packed array"

["John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid>]

In article <gvoim5$umb$1@aioe.org>,
 Dennis Hoppe <dennis.hoppe@hoppinet.de> wrote:

> Now, I am sure it is "just" a recursion issue. The following test 
> terminates after just 87.354 iterations:
[...]
> Output:
> 
>   87354

I get 85287 with a stack size of 8192 KiB, ~100 bytes/frame.

[...]
> For me, 87.354 seems to be a very low upper bound of recursion. An 
> adapted version in Java runs 519.045 recursion steps before a 
> StackOverflowError occurs on the same machine.

Each JVM will surely have some default stack size. Mine gives 208369 
for for the smallest permitted heap: -Xms1048576 -Xmx1048576. I would 
not be surprised if the JVM stack frame is smaller.

> It is clear, that I cannot indefinitely call a procedure recursively. 
> Unfortunately, I cannot predict in advance, how many recursion steps 
> my program have to proceed. How can I avoid the stack overflow in 
> recursion? Can I influence the upper bound of recursive calls, i.e 
> the size of the run-time stack?

This is OS dependent. If you are using GNAT, you might check the User's 
Guide:

<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.3.3/gnat_ugn_unw/Stack-Overflow-Checking.html>

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>