>>>Which version of VFP are you using? I remember there was a problem with too long reports, but I think it was fixed in newer versions. And changing the stacksize isn't a cure, AFAIR.
>>
>>We're using VFP 9 SP2
>
>I think there's something wrong in the report itself - you may have too many function calls in it, and Fox's report engine is notorious for repeatedly calling such code - one function on one field may be called several times per record. While I don't remember ever having stack problems, I had one of speed, and what made it fast enough was to move most of the function calls - those that would calculate values or compose strings - out of the report into the code preparing the cursor, and having those strings and values in additional fields, which the report would then use, with no calls made.
>
>Without knowing what your report does I can't, of course, know whether this is applicable to your case at all, but I guess mentioning it won't hurt.

First, we did bump up the stacksize and it did allow the report to run. So, it's not the report. It's stacksize.

I hate to be rude, but I just want to know from someone who has experience setting stacksize to the MAX. I believe stacksize probably dates back the DOS. In this modern era where VFP uses many, many MB of memory, I'm thinking that stacksize other than the max value is irrelevant.