Usurp wrote: > > vitamin wrote: > > That was a typo - meant to set stack to unlimited not the max user processes. So 'ulimit -s unlimited' is the correct one. > > I noticed it too, thanks. > what about the 'obvious place' to look for documentation about this issue ? I'm not sure what are you asking? This bug first showed up in bugzilla. And eventually marked as invalid. Do you want to know why gcc needs stack? Or you want to know why RedHat decided to set such a low limit? Or why compiling Wine's source breaks but everything else works?
