> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Dawson Engler wrote:
> > > Here are 37 errors where variables >= 1024 bytes are allocated on a function's
> > > stack.
> >
> > Is it possible to get checker to determine the stack depth of a worst
> > case call chain (excluding interrupts)? I've found that deep call chains
> > are far more likely to cause stack overflows than short and bounded paths.
>
> Not realistic - we have a recursion through the ->follow_link(), and
> a lot of stuff can be called from ->follow_link(). We _do_ have a
> limit on depth of recursion here, but it won't be fun to deal with.
You mean following function pointers is not realistic? Actually the
function pointers in linxu are pretty easy to deal with since, by
and large, they are set by static structure initialization and not
really fussed with afterwards.
-
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 - 22:00:27 EST