From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 16 March 2018 17:29
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If you want to catch stack frames which have unbounded size,
> > -Werror=stack-usage=1000 or -Werror=vla-larger-than=1000 (with the constant
> > adjusted as needed) might be the better approach.
>
> No, we want to catch *variable* stack sizes.
>
> Does "-Werror=vla-larger-than=0" perhaps work for that? No, because
> the stupid compiler says that is "meaningless".
>
> And no, using "-Werror=vla-larger-than=1" doesn't work either, because
> the moronic compiler continues to think that "vla" is about the
> _type_, not the code:
>
> t.c: In function ‘test’:
> t.c:6:6: error: argument to variable-length array is too large
> [-Werror=vla-larger-than=]
> int array[(1,100)];
>
> Gcc people are crazy.
>
> Is there really no way to just say "shut up about the stupid _syntax_
> issue that is entirely irrelevant, and give us the _code_ issue".
I looked at the generated code for one of the constant sized VLA that
the compiler barfed at.
It seemed to subtract constants from %sp separately for the VLA.
So it looks like the compiler treats them as VLA even though it
knows the size.
That is probably missing optimisation.
David
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��)��^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
