On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:13:34PM -1000, Joey Pabalinas wrote: > The only fix I could find which didn't requiring substantial > reimplementation of the memory management functions was to replace > the malloc() call in calloc() with realloc() instead. With a NULL `p` > argument realloc() behaves exactly the same as malloc() does, and > (at least on my system) gcc doesn't seem to consider realloc() a > candidate for sibling call optimizations; give this patch a try > and _hopefully_ this is a viable solution. On second thought, doing it this way is probably a *little* bit better; the needless initialization of `r` to NULL is avoided, and it also makes the purpose of using realloc() over malloc() a *tiny* bit more explicit: Signed-off-by: Joey Pabalinas 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Src/mem.c b/Src/mem.c index 840bbb6e4a4eb6fd73..f1208197b3ddac2139 100644 --- a/Src/mem.c +++ b/Src/mem.c @@ -1719,7 +1719,13 @@ calloc(MALLOC_ARG_T n, MALLOC_ARG_T size) if (!(l = n * size)) return (MALLOC_RET_T) m_high; - r = malloc(l); + /* + * use realloc() (with a NULL `p` argument it behaves exactly the same + * as malloc() does) to prevent an infinite loop caused by sibling-call + * optimizations (the malloc() call would otherwise be replaced by an + * unconditional branch back to line 1719 ad infinitum). + */ + r = realloc(NULL, l); memset(r, 0, l); -- 2.16.2