On 26.01.2007 [10:37:03 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:24:56PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> > Hmm. On x86, sometimes gcc will optimize out the alloca() call. This
> > patch fixes it up nicely. Please apply.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/stack_grow_into_huge.c b/tests/stack_grow_into_huge.c
> > index fc8a030..7112428 100644
> > --- a/tests/stack_grow_into_huge.c
> > +++ b/tests/stack_grow_into_huge.c
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ void do_child()
> > {
> > while (1) {
> > alloca(16*1024*1024);
> > + sleep(0); /* Defeat the gcc optimizer */
> > }
> > }
>
> Hrm, that's a little strangely magical. I'd suggest instead doing:
> volatile int *x;
> x = alloca(lots);
> *x = 1;
>
> Then it's clear that the compiler is forbidden from eliding the
> alloca().
Agreed, and I prefer this to the barrier() suggestion from Dave. I'll
make this change locally and drop Adam's fix-up patch.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
