This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH,testsuite] fix STACK_SIZE issue in pr23135.c
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:44:46 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH,testsuite] fix STACK_SIZE issue in pr23135.c
- References: <20070709200359.GA535@sparrowhawk.codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 13:03 -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> The attached patch fixes an issue with pr23135.c and STACK_SIZE. We
> declare:
>
> typedef struct { char c[STACK_SIZE/2]; } big_t;
>
> thinking that we will only need one copy of big_t inside our main
> function. Except that we pass a big_t by value, so we need to copy it,
> which means that we have two STACK_SIZE/2 objects on the stack, plus any
> local variables, saved registers, etc. etc. Therefore, our stack size
> requirement winds up exceeding STACK_SIZE. So we need to be a bit more
> conservative in how big a big_t is, which is what this patch does.
>
> It's possible that there may still be platforms on which this fails, but
> this patch is at least an improvement on what we had before.
>
> Tested on {i586,ppc,sparc}-wrs-vxworks with STACK_SIZE defined to be
> 192k. The testcase failed on these platforms previously and passes with
> the patch. OK to commit?
The test was constructed to demonstrate a reload problem on sh-elf, and
with the changes it's quite possible that it would no longer demonstrate
that problem.
Instead of changing how STACK_SIZE is used, you could use dg-options
to define STACK_SIZE for vxworks (and possibly other) targets for which
the default value isn't reasonable.
Janis