[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080620.152847.169209890.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mpatocka@...hat.com
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >> I agree on both counts. Although I'm curious what the average stack
> >> frame sizes look like on x86_64 and i386, and also how this area
> >> appears on powerpc.
> >
> > I also one to mention in passing that another thing we can do to
> > help deep call stack sizes is to make call chains more tail-call
> > friendly when possible.
>
> ... and remove -fno-optimize-sibling-calls?:
>
> Makefile:
> ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
> else
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fomit-frame-pointer
> endif
>
> --- maybe it could be better to remove it, instead of some inlining that I
> made. Or do you see a situation when for debugging purpose, user would
> want -fno-optimize-sibling-calls?
Yes for debugging and other things it has to stay.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists