[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run
From: |
Daniel Bump |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:20:11 -0800 |
Trevor wrote:
> Basically, the assumption that (2 * MAX_BOARD * MAX_BOARD / 3)
> is sufficicient for the string[] structure is wrong.
Gunnar wrote:
> > The new value ( MAX_BOARD * MAX_BOARD * 2 / 3 ) is still quite a bit
> > deeper than GNU Go should ever try.
>
> No, this is not safe. It's not only the reading code doing trymoves.
> Unconditional_life() can get very close to filling the entire board
> under certain circumstances. This was discussed in the list around
> August 21 last year, in a thread with the subject "gnugo bug logs".
I had forgotten Gunnar's comment when I checked trevor_1_25.2 into
CVS. I suppose we should increase MAXSTACK again.
Dan
- [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Trevor Morris, 2002/02/14
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Daniel Bump, 2002/02/14
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run,
Daniel Bump <=
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Trevor Morris, 2002/02/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Daniel Bump, 2002/02/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/02/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Trevor Morris, 2002/02/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/02/17
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Daniel Bump, 2002/02/19
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Dave Denholm, 2002/02/19
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: Stack over-run, Daniel Bump, 2002/02/19