From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10302122051.AA01639@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Checking for stack overflow
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:51:50 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0302121051330.32166@sirppi.helsinki.fi> from "Esa A E Peuha" at Feb 12, 2003 11:12:49 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> I committed patch for __djgpp_stack_top; we should have it anyway
> because __djgpp_stack_limit + _stklen won't be the real top of stack if
> it's not aligned to 8-byte boundary.

Fine.  It would be nice if this was documented, but I don't see any
docs for __djgpp_stack_limit either (sigh).

> > I think the change to "jb" fixes the signed-ness issue - so I'm not
> > sure this is really needed.
> 
> I don't understand.  Do you mean that a single unsigned comparsion
> against __djgpp_stack_limit is enough?  It's not; it's even worse than
> the single signed comparsion (if esp ever wraps below zero, the unsigned
> comparsion will never detect it, while the signed one will usually do).

I think you're right - too much typing without thinking on my part

> > I'd be interested to see this working, see how much of a run-time
> > impact it has, and how much checking the second limit changes the
> > run-time performance.
> 
> I'll provide two version of patched gcc, one with one signed comparsion
> and the other with two unsigned ones.

I think a single version with the right behavior would be best :-)

- Raw text -