On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: > Hi > > In the dark ages of RTEMS, the stack size argument wasn't really give > much > thought when writing the tests. As we move down in target size, I am > wondering if we should make as many of the tests as possible use the > default stack size.
Sounds like a good idea to this humble user :-P It might even catch some that fail. > Isaac's reduction of stack size made me think of this. It may also > make > sense for a BSP to define a default stack size similar to how we > allow a > bsp default idle stack size. > > Just thinking and wanting feedback. Just thinking here too, but I'm a bit of a fan of GCC's "-Wstack -usage=<bytes>" feature, which'll issue a warning if it can't guarantee that a function's stack usage is bounded and at or below <bytes> B. I'm not really sure if it always recurses though, to be honest. The doco (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.3/gcc/Warning-Options.html )'s a bit sparse... Oh, and it isn't too great when unoptimised on constructs like 'char buffer[strlen("bam")]' where it doesn't precompute strlen(). -- Nick Withers Embedded Systems Programmer Department of Nuclear Physics, Research School of Physics and Engineering The Australian National University (CRICOS: 00120C) _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
