Re: [cc65] dummy questions...

From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2002-02-18 13:39:54

• Previous message: Marko Mäkelä: "RE: Re[2]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• In reply to: Keates, Mark: "RE: Re[2]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• Next in thread: groepaz: "Re[4]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• Next in thread: Matt Ackeret: "Re: [cc65] library header bug correction - and some compiler hazzle"

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:20:38AM -0500, Keates, Mark wrote:
> Aren't both of these 'solvers' recursion based?
> Would the standard cc65 stack frames cope with this?

Standard C stack size is 2K on most architectures. The return address goes
onto the hardware stack, which is more limited so regardless of the C stack
size, a recursion depth around 128 is the theoretical maximum (real life
values are ~100 for most platforms).

Regards


        Uz


-- 
Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

• Previous message: Marko Mäkelä: "RE: Re[2]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• In reply to: Keates, Mark: "RE: Re[2]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• Next in thread: groepaz: "Re[4]: [cc65] dummy questions..."
• Next in thread: Matt Ackeret: "Re: [cc65] library header bug correction - and some compiler hazzle"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-02-18 13:39:53 CET