Dale wrote: > Hi Paulo >@2010.06.09_15:29:48_+0200
Hi, Dale >> Dale wrote: >>[...] >> Sometimes this doesn't work correctly, but I wasn't able to produce a >> simple case to show this problem (only very complex programs which I >> didn't want to post online). :( > > Likewise, which is why I ended up with a crippled sample :-) The concept > is the same. > > But you agree that there's stack used and never returned for reuse? Yes, but in the example shown there is no opportunity for reuse, so we can not know if the compiler would in fact reuse the space or not. My point is that, in the example, if the compiler actually wrote code to decrease the stack it would made the code worse, because it would be doing operations on the stack pointer for nothing. The problem is that people running gcc on "big" machines never notice this. The other crowd that noticed it already was the linux kernel people were the stack is limited to 4Kb. I'm trying to find a similar thread that I remember reading on LKML, but my google-fu is letting me down :( -- Paulo Marques Software Development Department - Grupo PIE, S.A. Phone: +351 252 290600, Fax: +351 252 290601 Web: www.grupopie.com "If cats were horses, we could ride up the trees." _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
