[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806201833200.25997@engineering.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
> 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.
If you want it to stay, then it doesn't make sense to make functions
tail-call-friendly --- because it should not crash with or without
debugging.
Mikulas
--
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