From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7755
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: ppc soft-float regression
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:26:31 +0200
Message-ID: <20150525132631.GB20259@port70.net>
References: <20150518183929.GA6370@euler>
 <20150518201043.GX17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20150518201422.GY17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20150518220731.GA31132@euler>
 <20150522062346.GK17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20150524030809.GA19134@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20150525003648.GO17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <1432535489.2715.1.camel@inria.fr>
 <20150525065756.GR17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <1432539884.7942.1.camel@inria.fr>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432560413 2631 80.91.229.3 (25 May 2015 13:26:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-7767-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon May 25 15:26:47 2015
Return-path: <musl-return-7767-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-7767-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1YwsP1-0002LI-2D
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 May 2015 15:26:47 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 21791 invoked by uid 550); 25 May 2015 13:26:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 21765 invoked from network); 25 May 2015 13:26:43 -0000
Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1432539884.7942.1.camel@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7755
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7755>

* Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr> [2015-05-25 09:44:44 +0200]:
> Am Montag, den 25.05.2015, 02:57 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> > 2. If cnt<LIMIT (e.g. 16k), produce VLA of the right size; otherwise
> >    produce VLA of size 1 and pass a null pointer instead of a pointer
> >    to the VLA.
> 
> Ok, so we have a simple sanity check, great.
> 

btw the stack usage of libc should be documented

currently a libc call always uses less than 10K stack(*)
but the guaranteed limit is not documented (16K limit is
fine i guess).

(*) assuming reasonable compiler, and execl is an
exception where stack usage depends on the number of
arguments.