[Bug libfortran/91543] [10 Regression] nf failure ( Handling stack overflow more sensibly

[law at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543

Jeffrey A. Law  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||law at redhat dot com

--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law  ---
For the case where you want some kind of recovery, -fstack-check is a better
approach than -fstack-clash-protection as -fstack-check ensures there's always
a page available to the segfault handler.

[Bug libfortran/91543] [10 Regression] nf failure ( Handling stack overflow more sensibly

[jb at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543

Janne Blomqvist  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist  ---
Is https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274264=gcc=rev the culprit?

And if so, should be reduce it back to the previous default of 32 kB?

(A bummer, I had hoped to eventually make -frecursive the default..)

[Bug libfortran/91543] [10 Regression] nf failure ( Handling stack overflow more sensibly

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P4
Version|unknown |10.0
   Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Handling stack overflow |[10 Regression] nf failure
   |more sensibly   |( Handling stack overflow
   ||more sensibly

--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig  ---
The nf failure is a regression in itself, so we should mark it as such,
and we should definitely try to fix this before gcc 10 comes out.