On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:57 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Randy, > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:41 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > - Concerning checking with tools, checkpatch probably still makes sense; > > > it pointed out in several places. If sparse and checkstack are really > > > the next two tools to point out, I am not so sure about. > > > > I doubt that ckeckstack is important since gcc & clang warn us about > > stack usage. > > True, but that would leave you without a tool to get figures when > there is no excess stack usage detected by the compiler. > Geert, possibly, we can configure the compiler to report/warn on any stack usage from every invocation and then turn all those warnings into a readable format or some format that further visualization and analysis tools can process. If that works, we can remove the checkstack tool. It is not a massively large script, but it is certainly written with a very special purpose. I mean it basically does object-code reverse-engineering with a magic set of regular expressions in Perl. If our current compilers can emit the same information, we are probably better off just using the output from a compiler and postprocessing that. Anyways, I think it is worth investigating all that and then see if the checkstack.pl tool still has a unique functionality, or if there are other better ways to get this kind of information---well, it is marked as todo, so anyone is free to pick it up. Lukas Lukas
