Hi Lukas,
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:04 PM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:57 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
"possibly"
> 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.
I'm fully aware how it works.
And I have used Linux' checkstack.pl tool for non-Linux projects, too.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
