rmaprath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19920#421230, @bcraig wrote:
> > We could, on the other hand, do this tightening for all the supported > > architectures (for the new, native-only libunwind build suggested by > > @jroelofs) with appropriate asserts in place so that we maintain these > > tight bounds as we move forward. Not sure if that effort would be worth > > though, given that for most non-ARM targets, unwinder stack usage is not a > > huge concern. > > > libunwind doesn't currently support Hexagon, but it has been investigated > some there. Hexagon would care about stack usage as well. I wouldn't be > surprised if some embedded MIPS and Power targets also cared. I don't think > any of those targets come close to using 1K for their unwind context. Right, in that case, I will do the tightening for all the existing architectures. Will add a comment explaining the expected behaviour for future changes as well. Thanks. / Asiri http://reviews.llvm.org/D19920 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
