Re: Build failure on gcc-4.6 [resend with other user]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Carl Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Raymond Toy <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Interesting.  I wonder if os_stack_grows_down_1 were moved to another file
>> would fix this.
>>
>
> If you think the call is being optimized away, you can try to add a
> "noinline" attribute to limit the optimization.
>

I don't have gcc 4.6 around anywhere so I can't test this.

>
> Aside from the PA-RISC, don't all of the ports have a downward growing
> stack?  Maybe it is time to make this a #define instead of using a clever
> runtime check.
>

A quick grep shows that this is only used for the stack guard zones, and
those functions are called only on x86.  For sparc, the C stack grows down,
but the Lisp control stack grows up, so those routines aren't used.

It looks like ppc never had the stack overflow support, and PA-RISC was
pretty much dead before I even started using cmucl.

So let's just get rid of them and fix up guard_zones to have a fixed
assumption on the stack direction.

Ray
_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp