3 ms·
Yeah, it sucks that programs crash on your system, but this is the way of things: The popular systems get targeted and tested in-depth, the less popular systems
by kstenerud 5y ago
Yeah, it sucks that programs crash on your system, but this is the way of things: The popular systems get targeted and tested in-depth, the less popular systems not so much. This is NOT the developer's fault; this is pragmatism.
And so the mountain must come to Mohamed. Increase Alpine's default stack size to something more in-line with the big boys.
- api 5y agoI would at least make it equal to MacOS, another very popular target where things are tested a lot. That’s 512KiB. 128 is teeny.
- brutal_chaos_ 5y agoWindows is also popular. Maybe change the process and thread stack sizes to 1MiB each? That's probably just as bad of a solution though, IMO. This article shows that assumptions are being taken for granted; no developer should expect two libc implementations to behave identically. Packagers for distros should be aware of this, too.
- arghwhat 5y agoNo, they should keep their low stack size to the benefit of everyone. Diversity helps discover what is fundamentally a broken and fragile assumption that a dynamic property will always have some value. An assumption that can fail anywhere, including on the OS that was initially targeted, and will fail the moment another OS is targeted. The developer should fix their broken assumption, but is entirely free to do so by taking control of the value at link time.
- choeger 5y agoI absolutely agree with your point about diversity. But us advocates need to understand this "pragmatic" view and counter it properly. Normally, the argument that works is: "Do you monitor the thread stack size on $POPULAR_PLATFORM so if that changes, you won't be bitte ?