On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:21:01AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> jeremy@goop.org said:
> > Even with this patch, the overflow is 808 bytes (without the patch
> > it's 1232 bytes).
>
> I was mulling over some other changes that would have saved another 256 bytes,
> but those don't look like they would help. Try the patch below. It
> essentially gives up and lets the stack occupy half of the lower page.
Well, that sweeps the problem under the carpet enough to make progress...
> Also, could you look at the stack pointer at each frame, to see if you are
> encountering any stack hogs in the generic kernel? In a different situation,
> I found devfs putting a 3K structure on the stack.
OK, I'll look into it.
J
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:10 EST