Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <038601c15b70$f5ce0930$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: References: <02a201c15b5b$7910a4d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011022204740 DOT B18754 AT redhat DOT com> <20011023005236 DOT 7136 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com> <20011022205828 DOT C18754 AT redhat DOT com> <02ea01c15b5f$7e673bc0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011022212759 DOT A19493 AT redhat DOT com> <032701c15b64$ea5523b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011022215102 DOT A20341 AT redhat DOT com> <033101c15b66$24fc2260$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <033701c15b68$f3684d70$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011022222324 DOT B20427 AT redhat DOT com> Subject: Re: 1.3.4 status? Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:15:25 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2001 03:20:06.0803 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D16BE30:01C15B71] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Re: 1.3.4 status? > > It is possible that a function would call __chkstk when it needed to > allocate space beyond a certain limit. Not every function begins with a > call to __chkstk/alloca, though. objdump shows a large number of calls to __chkstk - particularly in functions using inline variables that are large. My 2c is that somewhere in gcc there is a heuristic that says "over size x variables get alloca'd". Now, AFAIK for i386 - win32 that doesn't make much sense - with the exception of variables nested deep into a if/case statement which are large && only one path is ever traversed per function call. In that scenario it will save stack space. It'd be neat to test with it turned off though. I wonder if there is a gcc option to do that? Rob