Adriaan van Os wrote:
It's an interesting option to add -fstack-check to the test suite:
./read2.inc: In procedure `R': In file included from ./readg1.pas:9: ./read2.inc:203: warning: frame size too large for reliable stack checking ./read2.inc:203: warning: try reducing the number of local variables failed
Could you please try that again after the release of the next GPC alpha?
I did and the result is included as an attachement to this email.
Do you know what the allowed frame size for reliable stack checking is (by experimenting or asking someone)? It seems to be fairly small (a few KB?), and in this case we might have to ignore this option, I'm afraid. GPC uses the stack for internal temporary values (string operations, structured value parameters and function results, ...), not only for local variables, so a size oriented on "typical" C usage (only a few local variables, mostly of scalar types) simply wouldn't fit.
I don't know exactly how stack checking is implemented, but on other platforms I've seen it done without any such restrictions (other than the total stack size, of course).
adam2v.pas:14: warning: varying case of `ALimit' adam2v.pas:12: warning: other case: `aLimit' ..... (etcetera)
That's not strange. That's the new warning I've suggested here recently (and implemented now). :-)
I apologize. I associated "case" with the case statement rather than with uppercase and lowercase.
I see. Any better suggestion for the wording?
Frank