This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] New flag -Wframe-larger-than-

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:
> Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) wrote:
>  > I have no strong objection, but I'd prefer to keep - form
>  > as well if we go = route,
>  > since we've been using - form internally for a while already.
>  For FSF purposes, the "=" form is definitely better, and there's no
>  reason to carry the "-" form forward.  So, the internal-use argument
>  carries no weight; all of us who develop internal patches take this risk.

Ok. I guess I looked at the wrong precedent.
Attached is the updated patch with only = form.
I just applied it to the trunk with your proposed documentation below,
as revision 132496.

>  > +Warn whenever the size of a function frame is larger than @var{len} bytes.
>  I think the documentation here should be expanded.  As Richard says,
>  this is only measuring the target-independent parts of the frame size.
>  We need to be careful that we not encourage people to use this in RTOS
>  as a way of determining exactly how many bytes to put on the stack.
>  So, something like:
>  "Warn whenever a function's stack frame requires more than @var{len}
>  bytes.  The computation done to determine the stack frame size is
>  approximate and not conservative.  The actual requirements may be
>  somewhat greater than @var{len} even if you do not get a warning.  In
>  addition, any space allocated via @code{alloca}, variable-length arrays,
>  or related constructs is not included by the compiler when determining
>  whether or not to issue a warning."
>  OK for 4.4 with that change.



Attachment: frame-larger-than-20080220.diff
Description: Text document

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]