On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 21:14 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On the other hand (my personal opinion, not shared by everyone) is > that the ioctl switch stack issue is mostly only a problem with 4K > stacks and in the rare cases when I still run 32bit kernels > I never set that option because I consider it russian roulette > (because there undoutedly dangerous dynamic stack growth cases that > checkstack.pl doesn't flag) Isn't the ioctl switch stack issue a separate GCC bug? It was/is assigning assigning separate space for local variables which are mutually exclusive. So instead of the stack footprint of the function with the switch() being equal to the largest individual stack size of all the subfunctions, it's equal to the _sum_ of the stack sizes of the subfunctions. Even though it'll never use them all at the same time. Without that bug, it would have been harmless to inline them all. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
