Re: Patch to reduce stack sizes

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 05/24/10 13:48, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/24/2010 08:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>    
> > On 05/24/10 12:05, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >      
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:18, Jeff Law<law@redhat.com>   wrote:
> > >
> > >        
> > > > Or is there another execution path that's causing the problem?
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > I think that at -O3 the function try_fit_stack_local gets inlined, and
> > > that initializes poffset only at the very bottom, and other cases that
> > > return false do not initialize it.  I think that explains why at -O2 it
> > > does not triggers the uninitialized variable warning.
> > >
> > >        
> > Right.  And thus what should be the behaviour of the two callers that
> > don't check the return value of try_fit_stack_local when it return
> > false?  Or are we sure it can never return false from those calls?
> >      
> The last two?  It's designed so that try_fit_stack_local must always
> succeed when we get there.
>    
OK.  Then the trivial initialization to zero should be safe.    Thanks 
for the confirmation about the behaviour of try_fit_stack_local.

Sebastian -- consider your patch approved.

Thanks,
Jeff