On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:01:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> if you see all possible paths through the program as a tree which branches
> for every decision then you only need to cut off the branches that are
> actually pointing upward the tree again. This would still allow to follow
> down into the callees of the recursive function because there should be
> at least one path that is non recursive (if not Checker should definitely
> complain ;)
> e.g.
> ----<-----------------+
> v |
> IF TRUE RECURSION
> -------+------ some path ----+
> |
> ELSE non recursive path
> +-------------------------- other functions ---------->
> Other functions can be still checked, you only need to prune the cycle.
> I have no idea if checker's algorithms actually work like this, but I could
> imagine that it would be one possible implementation.
Why would you do it this way? AFAICT this is more naturally phrased as
cycle detection in a digraph.
Cheers,
Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:30 EST