| |||||||||||||
Conservative Automatic Stack Size CheckConservative Automatic Stack Size CheckPosted Sep 8, 2005 9:12 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Conservative Automatic Stack Size Check by pkolloch Parent article: 4K stacks for everyone?
Most stack allocation should be easily statically determinableSome static determination is possible but not easy and not reliable (nor can it ever be reliable in the general case), and the error bars are large. See Olivier Hainque's paper in the GCC 2005 Summit proceedings for a pile of info on this. TBH I'd expect that kernel developers' own hunches would be as reliable.
(Log in to post comments)
Conservative Automatic Stack Size Check Posted Sep 8, 2005 9:53 UTC (Thu) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link] After a moderate amount of web searching, I could find the abstract of thepresentation, but not the paper itself. Any pointers? BTW I did not say that it "easy" for the general case, but for the kernel without dynamic stack allocations and recursion. And OK, I was probably naive and will agree that it is probably also difficult for this special case ;) But both feasible and desirable. I hope Olivier Hainque will be successful in his quest and his work will be applied to the kernel. > TBH I'd expect that kernel developers' own hunches would be as reliable. And predict which variables are being stored in registers and which on the stack and considering all call paths? No, I think humans would miss a lot of special cases on that one. Additionally, not anyone would actually endeavor to do this for anything but some core functions. Am I wrong?
Conservative Automatic Stack Size Check Posted Sep 8, 2005 11:42 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] The paper starts on page 99 of the proceedings PDF. I've not found it split separately, and the PDF file is quite large (around 1.7MB).
|
|||||||||||||