J?rn Engel wrote:
> But I'll shut up now and see if I can generate better data over the
> weekend. -test11 still had fun stuff like 3k stack consumption over
> some code paths in a pretty minimal kernel. Wonder what 2.6.6 will do
> with allyesconfig. ;)
That gave me an idea. Sometimes in chip design, we 'overconstrain' the
logic synthesizer, because static timing analyzers often produce
inaccurate results. Anyhow, what if we were to go to 4K stacks but in
static code analysis, flag anything which uses more than 2K or even 1K?
> That gave me an idea. Sometimes in chip design, we 'overconstrain' the
> logic synthesizer, because static timing analyzers often produce
> inaccurate results. Anyhow, what if we were to go to 4K stacks but in
> static code analysis, flag anything which uses more than 2K or even 1K?
the patch I sent to akpm went to 400 bytes actually, but yeah, even that
already is debatable.
On Tue, 8 June 2004 08:26:25 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > That gave me an idea. Sometimes in chip design, we 'overconstrain' the
> > logic synthesizer, because static timing analyzers often produce
> > inaccurate results. Anyhow, what if we were to go to 4K stacks but in
> > static code analysis, flag anything which uses more than 2K or even 1K?
With 2.6.6, there are currently just a few non-recursive paths over
3k. 2k will give you a *lot* of output, but if you insist... ;)
http://wh.fh-wedel.de/~joern/data.nointermezzo.cs2.2k.bz2
470k compressed, 65M uncompressed
Feel free to send patches.
> the patch I sent to akpm went to 400 bytes actually, but yeah, even that
> already is debatable.
400 bytes? That is for a single function, I assume.
J?rn
--
Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting.
-- Sun Tzu