Re: stack overflow on Sparc64

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/