Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: VLAs use less stack |
| Date | 2012-09-04 00:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <aaknq3F87aU1@mid.dfncis.de> (permalink) |
| References | <k1q5bu$49h$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnsjb2ucn5.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <k2034n$jb5$1@reader1.panix.com> <lnzk58f6ng.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <k20nhd$b0$1@dont-email.me> |
On 03.09.2012 00:45, John Nagle wrote: > If the program isn't recursive, and you do code coverage tests, > so that the worst case stack depth has been exercised, It's relatively easy to prove that this is impossible to achieve in the general case. Even without VLAs you run into problems as soon as you have function pointer variables involved, because trying to predict which functions those can possibly point to, short of actually running the program with all possible inputs, is generally equivalent to the Halting Problem. VLAs make that even more impossible, because even if you can build a known-complete call tree that still doesn't give you the actual stack size.
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 12:58 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 14:10 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 14:13 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 18:09 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 18:14 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-01 12:24 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 22:57 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 22:59 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:42 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 10:18 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:18 +0100
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:19 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 23:01 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 11:36 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:05 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-02 16:56 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:22 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-04 00:39 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:28 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-04 11:31 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:02 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-02 23:28 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:37 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-02 15:45 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-09-04 00:03 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-01 16:09 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 11:45 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 23:05 +0200
csiph-web