From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10302111440.AA01702@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Checking for stack overflow
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:40:00 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0302111407150.31931@sirppi.helsinki.fi> from "Esa A E Peuha" at Feb 11, 2003 02:19:18 PM
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

> No, we shouldn't push anything to the stack, so we can't do the addition
> 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.

I think the change to "jb" fixes the signed-ness issue - so I'm not
sure this is really needed.

The new top limit will causes problems with interrupt wrappers since
they live in heap space - fix is not to compile anything used in
a wrapper with check stack

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.

- Raw text -