Denys Vlasenko wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday 22 April 2008 05:15, Eric Sandeen wrote:


quoted text
>>> Compile-tested only.
>> FWIW this one actually does not seem to reduce stack usage anywhere.
> 
> I hope this will not deteriorate into a contest whether
> every particular patch reduces stack usage or not, but:

Sorry if you took it that way; since the patch was in response to Dave's
mention of accepting stack-reducing patches, I thought it was worth
checking and highlighting whether it seemed to help.  It wasn't supposed
to be an attack or argument.

quoted text
> You do not see reduced stack usage in "make checkstack",
> because "make checkstack" shows only stack usage caused by
> local variables (it analyses sub %esp,NN instructions which
> make room for them). Parameters also take up stack, but
> they are pushed on stack with push instruction,
> and so are invisible in "make checkstack" output.

Hm, I had assumed that the %esp subtraction also made room for the
arguments pushed onto the stack.  Is there no way to analyze that part?

Thanks,
-Eric
--
unsubscribe notice
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/