Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/06/07:06:35
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Why not jump to __djgpp_traceback_exit instead?
After printing "out of stack", you mean? Maybe, but the traceback
doesn't seem very useful to me in this case.
> I don't think we should have this working by default, only given some
> switch to GCC. Stack checking is a run-time overhead, so we shouldn't
> force it on users, IMHO.
Gcc already has -fstack-check for this; it just doesn't do anything
Here's another thought: how about having an uncommitted memory page just
below the stack? Then stack overflow would be just like dereferencing a
null pointer; caught with no run-time overhead (but only on DOS machines
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
- Raw text -