On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
>
>> I just noticed that some cleverly optimizing compilers broke the code I used
>> to detect whether the stack grows upwards or downwards. I will upload a
>> patch tonight.
>
> Wouldn't t
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> I just noticed that some cleverly optimizing compilers broke the code I used
> to detect whether the stack grows upwards or downwards. I will upload a patch
> tonight.
Wouldn't two calls to alloca() in a single function give a reliable answer
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>
> This confusese two things: (1) the existence of a stack; (2) the
> direction of growth.
> The test for (2) is invoking an undefined behaviour. Therefore, the
> outcome of
> that test does not say anything
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
wrote:
> ECL is assuming that local variables are kept in the stack. Is this wrong?
What is undefined behaviour isn't assuming the notion of "stack" -- which the
C standard effectively does not know about.
The crucial point is that it is
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
> wrote:
> > I just noticed that some cleverly optimizing compilers broke the code I
> used
> > to detect whether the stack grows upwards or downwards
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
wrote:
> I just noticed that some cleverly optimizing compilers broke the code I used
> to detect whether the stack grows upwards or downwards. I will upload a
> patch tonight.
Hmm.
The code in question invoked an undefined behaviour. So,
