delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Sybari-Space: | 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 |
From: | Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se> |
Message-Id: | <200302120903.KAA25320@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> |
Subject: | Re: Checking for stack overflow |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:03:44 +0100 (MET) |
In-Reply-To: | <10302111440.AA01702@clio.rice.edu> from "Charles Sandmann" at Feb 11, 2003 08:40:00 AM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL3] |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
Charles said: > > here. But if we put __djgpp_stack_limit + _stklen into another variable > > (maybe call it __djgpp_heap_bottom) then it's quite possible to check > > that too. OK to commit? > > I would rather call it something like __djgpp_stack_top (it may not > be related at all to heap) if we did it. Exactly my thought. But we might want to be careful with that name. __djgpp_stack_top isn't right either because it's not the top of stack either. stack_end? stack_bottom? Right, MartinS
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |