Processing a passed auto-array sizing argument greater that 1000 crashes at runtime

[peter_stevens]

We have found by trial that passing an array size argument that exceeds 1000 will cause a runtime exception. The added sample f90 file attachment shows the basic issue. Under a debug run, the crash appears to be from within the microsoft chkstk.asm pagesize probing. Our environment is VS2005 SP1 and IF10.1.
Is this a problem or a configuration issue. Thanks.
Pete

[Les_Neilson · Accepted solution]

The arrays are being allocated on the stack by default. To allocate on the heap :
Under Project=>Fortran=>Optimizaton set Heap Arrays to 0 (zero)

Les

[peter_stevens]

Quoting - Les Neilson

The arrays are being allocated on the stack by default. To allocate on the heap :
Under Project=>Fortran=>Optimizaton set Heap Arrays to 0 (zero)

Les

Thanks Les, your suggestion worked a treat - it does take a while to work thru the arrays (around 18 seconds in the coded example) but maybe that is the cost of using the heap. Pete

[TimP]

Quoting - peter.stevens

Thanks Les, your suggestion worked a treat - it does take a while to work thru the arrays (around 18 seconds in the coded example) but maybe that is the cost of using the heap. Pete

If you didn't try increased stack size (e.g. /link /stack:800000000) that might present an alternative to heap-arrays.

[peter_stevens]

Quoting - tim18

If you didn't try increased stack size (e.g. /link /stack:800000000) that might present an alternative to heap-arrays.

Thanks tim18, I had not tried this approach but setting the /stack (and also tested with setting the stack commit) to 800000000, it did allow the test code to complete but took 25 seconds; repeat of the Heap approach yielded a faster outcome with no noticable resource hit.

[nvaneck]

Quoting - peter.stevens

Thanks tim18, I had not tried this approach but setting the /stack (and also tested with setting the stack commit) to 800000000, it did allow the test code to complete but took 25 seconds; repeat of the Heap approach yielded a faster outcome with no noticable resource hit.

Doesn't it work to SAVE the array where it's allocated?