On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:44:59PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 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.
Oh, did realise the only problem with that approach is that it will
really truly allocate rather a lot of memory, which might be a problem
in some conditions. That can be addressed by making the alloc() block
size larger.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
