does some language or platform not have a fixed size of stack and therefore not easy to overflow? I remember using C on UNIX, the stack was difficult to overflow while back in the days of Win 3.1, the stack was very easy to overflow.
相关问题
- Ada beginner Stack program
- Parsing a Chemistry Formula in Python
- pass by reference in assembly
- Assembler Stack Alignment (or better misaligned ex
- Order of variable declaration in asm x86?
相关文章
- Threading in C# , value types and reference types
- Stack<> implementation in C#
- Java, Printing the stack values
- Is there a stack space for every thread?
- cc1plus.exe crash when using large precompiled hea
- How we access stack variables without poping them?
- Android stack size
- How to check a uiviewcontroller is present in uina
Mac Systems 6, 7, and 8 had call stacks that could grow without artificial limit.
It also has no guaranteed way to detect a stack--heap collision, and could get you into all kinds of trouble that way...
this is a question of the practical vs the theoretical. the stack of a lisp interpreter is limited only by available memory
in scheme and other languages that implement tail recursion, a tail recursive function would have an infinite stack
If by "stack" you mean any old stack, most languages do-- Java has a stack class limited only by memory. More likely you mean the call stack, in which case the biggest example I can think of is Stackless Python, which, to my understanding, uses a pure-python memory-limited stack (like Java's) as the call stack for Python code, rather than using C's call stack.