KnowledgeBase Archive

An Archive of Early Microsoft KnowledgeBase Articles

View on GitHub

Q51512: OS/2 1.1 EXE May Fail under 1.2 Due to Small Thread Stack Size

Article: Q51512
Product(s): See article
Version(s): 5.10
Operating System(s): OS/2
Keyword(s): ENDUSER | | mspl13_c
Last Modified: 20-DEC-1989

If a multithread program runs correctly under OS/2 Version 1.10, but
the identical program fails under OS/2 Version 1.20, the problem may
be the size of the thread stack. Under OS/2 1.20, a thread has more
overhead and requires more space. If you maintain the recommended 2K
minimum stack size for each thread, then you should never run into
this problem.

If your program has been running successfully under OS/2 1.10 with a
thread stack that is smaller than 2K, and the program fails under OS/2
1.20, then the first thing you should try is a larger thread stack
size.

Some of the early examples of multithreaded programming that were
included in the OS/2 SDK used a thread stack size of 400 bytes. These
programs run fine on the previous versions of OS/2, but fail with a
trap 000C under OS/2 1.20. A check of the Intel 80286 documentation
shows that 000C is a stack overflow problem.

The exact increase necessary in thread stack size between OS/2 1.10
and 1.20 was not determined, but increasing the stack to 1000 bytes
allowed these SDK examples to run without problem. Regardless of the
actual difference needed, the best thing to do is to maintain the
minimum of at least a 2K thread stack to prevent problems in general.

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MICROSOFT KNOWLEDGE BASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY.