On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I don't know why icc is so much worse than gcc on this measure of
>> stack depth consumption, but clearly the combination of that and
>> the 100kB max_stack_depth explains why dugong is failing to do
>> very many levels of recursion bef
I wrote:
> I don't know why icc is so much worse than gcc on this measure of
> stack depth consumption, but clearly the combination of that and
> the 100kB max_stack_depth explains why dugong is failing to do
> very many levels of recursion before erroring out.
I figured out why icc looked so much
Greg Stark writes:
> It seems more likely it would be some kind of asm than a trap.
I seem to be getting plausible results from this bit of crockery:
#include
static __inline__ void *
get_bsp(void)
{
void *ret;
#ifndef __INTEL_COMPILER
__asm__ __volatile__(
";;\n
Greg Stark writes:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As I said above, I don't know of any good way to measure register stack
>> depth directly. It's probably possible to find out by asking the kernel
>> or something like that, but we surely do not want to introduce a kernel
>>
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I said above, I don't know of any good way to measure register stack
> depth directly. It's probably possible to find out by asking the kernel
> or something like that, but we surely do not want to introduce a kernel
> call into check_stack_dep
