Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30752

Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?

Path csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded
Subject Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?
Date Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:00:37 +0300
Organization Tidorum Ltd
Lines 39
Message-ID <imvvdmFu7i4U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <sdukj9$8tu$1@dont-email.me> <sea47k$j3s$1@dont-email.me> <seb3fa$82q$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Trace individual.net Eve39rqWNyBhB+MaXbW14wB6na1GqQfa5dwXfh+tjwCE4pssHW
Cancel-Lock sha1:7R0InBiAEQNhIcmAfQnGN4+4u/s=
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To <seb3fa$82q$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language en-US
Xref csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:30752

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2021-08-03 12:49, pozz wrote:
> Il 03/08/2021 02:56, Don Y ha scritto:
>> On 7/29/2021 9:22 AM, pozz wrote:
>>> arm gcc and Cortex-Mx MCUs embedded systems.
>>> 
>>> Is there a compilation-time (static) tool for stack analysis that
>>>  really works?
>> 
>> What do you mean by "really works"?  It's a (potentially) unbounded
>> problem as the compiler can't know what the inputs will drive the
>> code to do, in practice.
> 
> I mean a simple tool that can be instructed, even manually, to
> produce a good result.
> 
> -fstack-usage is not usable "by hands".
> 
> You need at least a call-graph (generated by a tool), fill each
> branch (function) with a stack usage (generated by the compiler),
> fill every branch that is not known at compilation time by the tools
> (call functions by pointers, recursive, and so on).
> 
> It's surprisingly to me there isn't a single non-expensive tool that
> helps in this, considering there are a multitude of good free tools
> for developers.


One reason is that for good results, such a tool has to analyze the 
executable code, and therefore must be target-specific, or at least have 
ports to the various targets, increasing the effort to implement and 
maintain the tool. The gnatstack tool gets around that, to some extent, 
by relying on stack-usage and call information from the compiler (gcc). 
Note that a source-level call graph will not show calls to the various 
support routines (run-time routines) inserted by the compiler, but those 
calls do use stack.

I am the main author of a WCET-analysis tool, Bound-T, that also does 
stack analysis and is now free. However, there is (as yet) no port for 
ARM Cortex-M. See http://www.bound-t.com/.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 18:22 +0200
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:36 +0300
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-02 17:56 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:43 +0300
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 02:28 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 22:14 +0300
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:43 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 11:49 +0200
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 20:17 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 16:43 +0200
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 11:06 -0700
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 12:00 +0300
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:54 -0700
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 20:00 +0300
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 10:50 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 21:50 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:46 -0700
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:43 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 06:16 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 18:39 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 01:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-06 22:58 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:04 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:06 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:20 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:46 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 15:14 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:09 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 08:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 19:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:02 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 21:10 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-06 22:55 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 13:40 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-08 18:34 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 10:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2021-08-09 11:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 22:59 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-09 12:04 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:18 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:59 -0700

csiph-web