On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:09:54PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
>...
> >In principle, all recursive paths should consume as little stack as
> >possible. Or the recursion itself could be avoided, even better. And
> >some of the call chains with ~3k of stack consumption may be
> >problematic on other platforms, like the x86-64. Taking care of those
> >could result in smaller stacks for the respective platform.
>
> Here is 2.6.12-rc1-bk3 raw checkstack output on x86-64:
> http://developer.osdl.org/~rddunlap/doc/checkstack1.out
Looking at the stack usage numbers, this was with a gcc that supports
unit-at-a-time.
If you use gcc 3.4 and enable unit-at-a-time (see my other email) the
i386 numbers look quite similar.
I doubt there are many architecture or 64 bit [1] specific stack usage
problems, so working on i386 might be enough.
> ~Randy
cu
Adrian
[1] theoretically a factor of two was possible due to the different
pointer sizes - but I have yet to see any example where this
really matters
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
