Re: Caclulating operand stack size

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich@compuserve.de>
18 May 2005 00:50:10 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Caclulating operand stack size clearm@comcast.net (2005-05-14)
Re: Caclulating operand stack size anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-05-16)
Re: Caclulating operand stack size angray@beeb.net (Aaron Gray) (2005-05-16)
Re: Caclulating operand stack size DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2005-05-18)
Re: Caclulating operand stack size anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-05-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich@compuserve.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 May 2005 00:50:10 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-05-105 05-05-136
Keywords: storage, optimize

Anton Ertl wrote:


> You can even calculate the depth including any non-recursive direct
> calls from the current function, and check for that, so you don't need
> to check at every such call. You have to arrange the calling
> convention appropriately; I would do it like this: the caller is
> responsible for the checking and growing, and (for indirect calls)
> accesses a field in the callee that contains information about the
> maximum stack depth of the callee before the next check.


You realize that your approach will have to separate subroutines, that
do the stack check, from subroutines that do not have to perform stack
checks?


How many subroutines can be allowed to omit an stack check, in every
situation?


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.