libthr and main thread stack size

[John Baldwin]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 09:36:25 PM Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 03:27:25PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> I suspect it was done out of reasons of being overly conservative in
> >> interpreting RLIMIT_STACK. I think it is quite surprising behavior
> >> though and would rather we make your option the default and implement
> >> what the Open Group says above.
> > 
> > Ok, below is the patch.  I felt bad about adding yet another magic and
> > undocumented tunable to our libthr.  Since there seems to be no
> > alternative than a tunable to enforce old behaviour, I documented
> > the quirks I am aware of.
> 
> Why do we need to support the old behavior?  Any program that ran in the old
> model will run in the new.  In the unlikely event that someone was using
> the old scheme for administrative control, there are other mechanisms for
> this already available that we can point them to instead.

I agree with this.  In my experience the issue it has always been the opposite 
(people having issues with the main stack shrinking).

-- 
John Baldwin