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: from "Esa A E Peuha" at Feb 11, 2003 02:19:18 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > 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.