>>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.

No offense taken - I threw this in in case it had any relevance.

Actually I'd rather be interested in knowing what did you have on the stack in those cases when it broke. I remember from the days when the stack was limited to 255 that whenever my stack reached three digits, I found out that I was inadvertently recursing or having some new sort of infinite loop. In regular operation I don't think my stack ever went over, say, sixty.

But then I never had them big reports, where the report engine would have a lot to do. I generally had something like Tore's solution - had someone else do the reports :).