Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:44:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:44:28 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:8445 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:44:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [CHECKER] 37 stack variables >= 1K in 2.4.17 From: Robert Love To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Alexander Viro , Dawson Engler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mc@cs.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: <20020612183854.B4081@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 12 Jun 2002 15:44:16 -0700 Message-Id: <1023921856.1476.64.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 15:38, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > Perfection isn't what I'm looking for, rather just an approximation. > Any tool would have to give up on non-trivial recursion, or have > additional rules imposed on the system. Checker seems to be growing > functionality in this area, so it seems like a useful feature request. I do not want to give up on this idea, either... if the implementation needs to be "hackish" or even explicitly ignore certain functions, so be it. There is a _lot_ that can be done with detailed call chain analysis -- the point you gave is one of many. Checker already has some basic functionality here I suspect based on what it is capable of reporting... imagine what more could be reported? Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/