From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b7566e485e23e171 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Mandatory stack check (was: Changing discriminants...) Date: 1996/08/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173217998 references: <3209AC29.3E21@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken said "Interesting. Does stack checking typically introduce an extra branch in the object code? If so, then someone with a requirement to test every object-code branch point would have to introduce a test to force a stack overflow for each affected code segment (including elaboration), or have to justify why the overflow check didn't need to be tested. That could be a little annoying..." Right, that would be a real disadvantage of the branch based approach. Our approach is to map out a page at the end of the stack and catch the reference (there are quite a few fine points to get this to work right, and it tends to be quite taget dependent). I would have thought that anyone with a requirement to test every object-code branch point would also include requirements to verify that the stack cannot overflow, but perhaps not!