From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 14 6:49:16 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E804637BEC9 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rivers@dignus.com) Received: from dignus.com (ponds.vnet.net [166.82.177.48]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29915; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lakes.dignus.com (lakes.dignus.com [10.0.0.3]) by dignus.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA23132; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.dignus.com (8.9.3/8.6.9) id JAA56212; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:48:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers Message-Id: <200004141348.JAA56212@lakes.dignus.com> To: jdp@polstra.com, peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Subject: Re: MLEN and crashes Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <00Apr14.093744est.115286@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Jeremy wrote: > > On 3/04, John Polstra wrote: > [don't allocate big structs on kernel stack] > > Many years ago, I wrote a tool that analysed stack requirements by > parsing the assembler output from the compiler. It determined the > stack frame requirements and built a call flow graph to determine > total stack depth. It had some hooks to allow indirect function > calls to be specified manually. It couldn't handle alloca() (and > equivalents), but they were forbidden by the design standards. Just wondering... How did you address recursive functions, or were they also forbidden by design standards? - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message