I've found the following question here:
The following recursive code will cause a stack overflow if the array
list is too large. How can you fix this and still retain the recursive
pattern?
And the answer:
The potential stack overflow can be avoided by modifying the
nextListItem function as follows:
var list = readHugeList();
var nextListItem = function() {
var item = list.pop();
if (item) {
// process the list item...
setTimeout( nextListItem, 0);
}
};
The stack overflow is eliminated because the event loop handles the
recursion, not the call stack. When nextListItem runs, if item is not
null, the timeout function (nextListItem) is pushed to the event queue
and the function exits, thereby leaving the call stack clear. When the
event queue runs its timed-out event, the next item is processed and a
timer is set to again invoke nextListItem. Accordingly, the method is
processed from start to finish without a direct recursive call, so the
call stack remains clear, regardless of the number of iterations.
Can somebody please explain to me:
whether this use case is ever practical
why long array can cause stack overflow
This is just a hacky alternative to trampolines, which in turn are just a hacky alternative to TCO.
When you call a function in Javascript, you add a frame to the call stack. That frame contains information about the variables in the scope of the function and how it was called.
Before we call a function, the call stack is empty.
-------
If we call function foo, then we add a new frame to the top of the stack.
| foo |
-------
When foo finishes executing, we pop the frame off the stack again, leaving it empty again.
Now, if foo in turn calls another function bar, then we'll need to add a new frame onto the stack, whilst foo is executing.
| bar |
| foo |
-------
Hopefully you can see that if a function calls itself recursively it keeps adding new frames to the top of the call stack.
| ... |
| nextListItem |
| nextListItem |
| nextListItem |
| nextListItem |
----------------
Recursive functions will keep adding frames until either they finish processing, or they exceed the max length of the call stack, resulting in an overflow.
Because setTimeout is an asynchronous operation, it doesn't block your function, which means nextListItem will be allowed to finish and its frame can be popped off the call stack—preventing it from growing. The recursive call will be handled with the event loop instead.
Is this pattern ever useful? The max size for the call stack depends on your browser, but it can be as low as 1130. If you wanted to process an array with a few thousand elements using a recursive function, then you'd risk blowing the call stack.
Trampolines use a similar technique, but rather than offloading the work to the event loop, you return a function which calls the next iteration instead, then the calls can be managed with a while loop (which doesn't affect the stack).
var nextListItem = function() {
var item = list.pop();
if (item) {
// process the list item...
return nextListItem;
}
};
while(recur = recur()) {}
It normally isn't, but in the off chance you decide you need to recursively chain the same function call for long sequences this could come in handy.
Stack overflow during recursive operations occurs when the amount of stack memory allocated for a particular program has been fully utilized. A sufficiently long array that is traversed recursively can cause a stack overflow. Perhaps you do not understand how the call stack works?
The repeating for loop is the most efficient for the code posted. However, if your actual code cannot be fitted to using a for loop, then there is another alternative.
The use of setTimeout depends on your opinion of 'practical,' so let's just list the facts so you can decide for yourself.
setTimeout forces the browser to swamp the CPU with operations to get millisecond precision timing. This can be very power inefficient.
With setTimeout, every iteration will cost 4ms. Just 4 iterations will take the time for a whole frame to get rendered. 250 iterations, and a whole second goes by.
But there is an alternative to setTimeout that will help you achieve exactly what you are trying to do without using setTimeout: the DeferStackJS library. If you use DeferStackJS, then all you would need to do is as follows.
var list = readHugeList();
var nextListItem = function() {
var item = list.pop();
if (item) {
// process the list item...
DeferStack( nextListItem );
}
};
Please emphasize that the above snippet of code is intended for demonstrating how to integrate DeferStackJS. Truth be told, using either DeferStackJS or Array.prototype.pop would be very inappropriate for this specific snippet of code. Instead, the following code would beat both of them hands down.
var list = readHugeList();
var nextListItem = function() {
"use strict";
var item, i = list.length;
while (i--) { // Bounds check: as soon as i === -1, the while loop will stop.
// This is because i-- decrements i, returning the previous
// value of i
item = list[i];
if (!item) break; // break as soon as it finds a falsey item
// Place code here to be executed if it found a truthy value:
// process the list item...
}
if (i !== -1) {
// Place code here to be executed if it found a falsey value:
}
};
The only reason DeferStackJS is mentioned is because I am a firm believer in that the #1 duty of a person answering a forum is to answer the original question asked. Then after they answer that they can put up commentary second-guessing the question about what was intended to be asked like this.
Related
I was writing some code for a widget in "Scriptable" that shows random word at a certain time. The widget calls itself with a timeout, on iPad. But it's exceeding the stack size. How do I solve this? I am using Javascript within "Scriptable" framework, so I don't have much freedom.
kanjiObj: Object; kanjiKeys: List; Timer().schedule(timeinterval, repeat, callback)
var randomNum = Math.floor(Math.random()*150)+1
var kanji = kanjiKeys[randomNum]
var kanjiMeaning = kanjiObj[kanjiKeys[randomNum]]
if(config.runsInWidget){
let widget = createWidget()
Script.setWidget(widget)
Script.complete()
function createWidget(){
let widget = new ListWidget()
widget.addText(kanji + "=>" + kanjiMeaning)
widget.wait = new Timer().schedule(1000*60*60, 150, createWidget())
In your case, you are calling the createWidget() function recursively by mistake. Your intention was different, you wanted to pass the function as a parameter to the schedule function, which accepts a function callback as the last parameter.
So you have to change to
widget.wait = new Timer().schedule(1000*60*60, 150, () => createWidget())
or
widget.wait = new Timer().schedule(1000*60*60, 150, createWidget)
But since this question is about "call stack size exceeded" people who have a different kind of this problem could stumble upon it, so I will answer in a general way below as well.
Programming is about recognizing patterns, so what you have in your code is a pattern (structure) of an infinite recursive call
function someFunction() {
// ... code before the recursive call that never returns from this function
// an unconditional call (or a conditional chain that is always true)
// of the function itself in the function scope instead of inside a callback/lambda
someFunction()
// ... could be more code, which does not matter,
// until the pattern above still holds true
}
So a structure (pattern) like this will result in an infinite recursive call, which eventually ends with a maximum call stack size exceeded. Call stack size is limited and an infinite recursive call eventually fills it up.
Javascript does not have built-in tail-recursion optimization (in practice, see compatibility), but in programming languages that do, if the function is tail-recursive, it would be optimized to a loop. In the case of an infinite tail-recursive function it would be optimized to an infinite loop, which would not fill the call stack, it would just loop forever (it would be working, but if not implemented correctly, it could make the application unresponsive).
So to resolve a problem like this in general, one has to break this pattern by breaking any (at least one) of the conditions above. This is the list:
code before the recursive call that never returns from this function
add a conditional return statement (also called a stop condition)
an unconditional call (or a conditional chain that is always true) to the function itself in the function scope instead of inside a callback/lambda
make the call conditional (make sure the condition chain can be false) or put it inside a callback/lambda. When you put it inside a
callback/lambda, then a different pattern applies (you have to check
the logic inside the call that will be calling the callback), but
calling the callback still has to be conditional, it has to have a
limit at some point.
after making a change, the code that is after the call, needs to be checked for the same pattern again, if the pattern is there again, break it in a similar way. Keep repeating this until the whole function does not form the pattern anymore - has stop condition(s) where needed.
In cases when you do need an infinite recursive call and the function is tail-recursive and your language does not support tail-recursion optimization, you would need to do the tail optimization yourself or use a library/framework that lets you do that.
If this does not solve your problem, have a look at the answers in this question that has collected a lot of reasons why a "maximum call stack size exceeded" might happen in Javascript.
I have this function which I want to loop without stopping the script.
But when I use 'console.log' the function stops. If I remove it, the function continues.
How to make this function continue after it has exceeded stack size?
var i = 0;
function computeMaxCallStackSize() {
try {
i++;
console.log(i);
//some function to execute
computeMaxCallStackSize();
} catch (e) {
//'e' is the error when max stack exceeds
// setTimeout() is to wait before calling the function
// if stack size exceeds it recalls the function
setTimeout(computeMaxCallStackSize(), 0);
}
}
computeMaxCallStackSize();
Edit:
This function will cause a stack overflow and continues.
var a = 1;
var b = 8769; //stack size
func(a);
function func(a) {
try {
console.log(a);
if(a % b === 0){
setTimeout( function() {func(a+1); }, 0);
} else {
func(a+1);
}
} catch (e) {
console.error(e);
setTimeout( function() {func(a); }, 1);
}
}
If I remove it, the function continues.
No it doesn't, it will finish also, but much later. console.log() taking much more resources cause it needs to render text in console, so it's reaching call stack faster.
You just made infinite loop, that will run till browser will run out of memory.
I don't see a way to catch stackoverflow in nodejs. From what I know from other ecosystems, it is impossible. See C# catch a stack overflow exception for example. Also see a note about exceptions:
Some exceptions are unrecoverable at the JavaScript layer. Such
exceptions will always cause the Node.js process to crash. Examples
include assert() checks or abort() calls in the C++ layer.
Process stack is fixed-size, contiguous block of memory, usually not very big (because it's purpose is to make use of process caches). This means that you can't "extend" it on your wish (only at process start). If you can't extend it, why bothering checking it's boundaries every time you do a function call? OS will do the job and crash your process for you!
I know it's not always possible in case of highly-recursive academic algorithms, but from business perpective, you should always unwrap your recursion, especially if it's deep. Even if you think you control it (like, it's only 2000 deep, who cares?), in reality you don't, since usually you don't fully control the caller stack size, and the end-user platform limitations.
BUT!
If you REALLY want to recover your process after stackoverflow, and you're ready for such an adventure (win api, build node from sources, etc.), I will leave this for you.
Your setTimeout is kind of pointless the way it is:
// Current code:
setTimeout(computeMaxCallStackSize(), 0);
// What you really want:
setTimeout(computeMaxCallStackSize, 0);
To answer your question - you don't want to write code which can exceed the stack - that's always an indication of poorly written code. Furthermore, there's not really a way to check the stack size or to check when the stack is "clear" again (for good reason - people would abuse that knowledge to write poor code).
If you need recursion, you almost always build in a "depth" parameter to the function so the function stops after a certain call depth. Something like this:
function someRecursiveFunction(_depth = 0) {
if(_depth < 100) {
// do the stuff
someRecursiveFunction(_depth + 1)
}
throw new Error('Oh no, we called this function too many times');
}
If you're just doing this for giggles and really want to see how deep the stack hole goes, I guess you could count the iterations. As mentioned in other comments, the console log is going to take up additional resources - so you might get 1 million iterations without the logging and only 100K with logging. Again, there's no way to ask the JS runtime "how many resources to I have left". The function you are writing is simply a "for fun" experiment and should not be used in real life code.
I am writing some software where one can execute a list of actions. each of these actions basically is a Promise.
Each action might have a timer Trigger (where the next action is triggered when the timer ran down). Also, the list of actions might be loopable.
Now it might be possible, that a list of actions e.g. consists out of 2 items, each is executed 0 seconds after finishing the last one, and looping is enabled, thus actually generating an infinite loop.
This is no error in the application and thus be possible to do. My Code looks (extremely simplified) like this at the moment:
const actions = [...] // (() => Promise<void>)[]
const current = 0
const loop = true
const autoTrigger = true
const go() {
if(current > actions.length && loop) current = 0
current ++
return Promise.resolve().then(() => {
return actions[current - 1]()
}).then(() => {
if(autoTrigger) return go()
return Promise.resolve()
})
}
Is this code safe to run, assuming that it might not be aborted until it iterated a few hundred thousand times, or might it cause an error because the recursion gets too deep?
Yes, it is safe to run. Because promises don't call their .then() handlers until after the interpreter has returned back to an empty stack (even if they resolve immediately), there is no stack build-up with this type of recursive-like coding style - no matter how many times it recurses.
So, this is safe, regardless of how many iterations it runs. It could even run indefinitely without any stack build-up.
I have a large array containing various data, and a function that performs some basic but somewhat time-consuming analysis on the array.
I use a forEach loop to iterate over the array. I want the function to return a specific element if a condition is met, otherwise false, using Promises since the function could take a considerable amount of time to complete:
var analyzeData = function (arr) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var answer = false;
arr.forEach(function (elm) {
if (elm.foo == true) {
answer = elm;
}
});
resolve(answer);
});
}
The issue I'm encountering is that I suspect that answer is being resolved before the forEach loop completes; i.e. before the forEach loop can finish checking every element's foo property, the function resolves to answer, which is by default false.
Is there a way to ensure that the code following the forEach loop waits for the loop to finish iterating, or loop through the array in some other manner?
JavaScript loop iteration is synchronous, and in your code you will always complete the loop before the call to resolve is made.
Note that JavaScript is also single threaded, so putting this in a promise won't make it run in the background. There will still be some period of time in which the UI not responsive to the user while this loop is executing.
You can offload some computation to background processes using web workers.
As an aside: can you exit the loop when the first item is found? If not, why not iterate in reverse (using a for-loop, not array reversal) and exit when the first item is found? It is still technically O(N) in the worst case, but the best case is O(1) if you bail out as soon as possible.
However to be more helpful, you will need to provide more information about what is happening. I would suggest putting together a small example on http://jsfiddle.net/ -- that can be a useful exercise in and of itself.
When I'm am executing the following code in Node.js, I get the folliowing error:
RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
This is the code:
var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++)
arr.push(i);
function nextStep(index) {
if (index === arr.length) {
return;
} else {
console.log(index);
}
nextStep(++index);
}
nextStep(0);
I have no clue what is happening, but near index = 17938, the execution terminates.
Using a setTimeout() helps. What could be wrong here?
You are entering a recursive function. This means that the first function won't return until all the other functions have returned. So if you had four items,
fn(item1)
calls -> fn(item2)
calls -> fn(item3)
calls -> fn(item4)
As you can see, the nesting builds up and up. This is called the stack. There is a maximum size for the stack, to prevent infinite recursion and runaway processes. You have found it with 17938.
This is an inherent flaw with recursion. It can be a stylish way to approach a task, but it has its limitations. The best way to correct it is to use a loop instead:
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
Using setTimeout also works, because the function is not called from the function itself, but is executed with a new stack. However, it will have significantly lower performance than a loop or than a normal recursive function.
There's a certain number of calls that can be made, based on the call stack of different browsers. Most likely, you are testing your code in Chrome, since, I believe, it has the call stack near 20.000. Your code will execute the nextStep function more than 20.000 times (1 million), which means that if your function will not return something until it reaches the call stack limit of that particular browser, it will generate the error that you are getting.
Calling nextStep inside nextStep causes a stack overflow since you never return from the function (unless you found the end of the array, and if the array is too big you will never reach it until the stack overflows).
An example:
You are going to move all the stones from one place to another. Your function is like going to the place where the stones are and pick up one to be delivered to another place. But before you can deliver the stone, you must pick up another, and before you can deliver that you need to pick up another... and soon you are carrying 17938 stones. That is a little bit to heavy and you get crushed under all the stones. (or in the javascript case you get an exception)
When you use setTimetout it is like you are going to the place, pick up a stone, and make a note that you should pickup another stone. Then you deliver the stone. After that you look at your notes and see that you should pick up at stone. And you can do this 1000000 times since you are only carrying one stone at a time.