On 06/21/11 12:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> It would be good to make sure GCC 4.6 whole program/link time
> optimization doesn't defeat this
It doesn't, at least, not on my platform (Fedora 14 x86-64 + GCC 4.6.0).
* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19:25AM CEST:
> Testing this is not something for the fainthearted, as it requires
> access to all sorts of strange hosts. However, it does seem to
> defeat GCC 4.6.0's tail-recursion optimization (-O0 through -O4)
> on my platform, which is what is w
On 06/20/11 10:54, Eric Blake wrote:
> Hmm, we'll need to backport this improved stack-direction testing to
> gnulib and libsigsegv, then,
Makes sense. I just pushed this gnulib patch, to do that part.
Testing this is not something for the fainthearted, as it requires
access to all sorts of str
Eric Blake wrote:
> Hmm, we'll need to backport this improved stack-direction testing to
> gnulib and libsigsegv, then
This is true for gnulib's alloca.c and c-stack.c.
The code in libsigsegv already contains a counter-measure against
tail recursion elimination:
-
[adding bug-gnulib]
On 06/19/2011 11:35 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/19/11 12:01, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> No, this program also exhibits the same incorrect behavior, for purposes
>> of stack growth checking.
>
> Thanks, I guess we'll have to turn it up a notch. How about the
> following test prog
