From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46928) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpQl-0003R7-JR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:30:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpQg-0004rM-Jd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:30:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38507) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpQg-0004qx-EO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:30:18 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE8D7208F for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:30:07 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20160310013007.GC4091@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1457420446-25276-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1457420446-25276-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <87pov5e5w3.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160308101944.GD5807@noname.str.redhat.com> <20160309025738.GF2377@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <56DF92D2.9040905@redhat.com> <20160309094804.GA5205@noname.redhat.com> <87bn6n6azg.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160309135750.GH5205@noname.redhat.com> <878u1r1hzc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878u1r1hzc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/8] qdict: fix unbounded stack for qdict_array_entries List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:03:51PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Kevin Wolf writes: > > I think it's unnecessary, but fine with me. I'm just trying to say that > > making it a fixed 128 byte array on the stack certainly doesn't improve > > anything. > > It trades a few bytes of stack for a fixed stack frame. A fixed stack > frame is a bit more efficient (not that it matters here), and lets us > scratch the function permanently from the list of stack fram size false > positives. I think that's a reasonable trade. Yes, that's what I want to do. I did fix nothing, but tried to avoid the warning. Sorry that I made it a wrong title (also in the following splitted patch). I should say: "Fix unbounded stack warning for qdict_array_entries" Rather than: "Fix unbounded stack for qdict_array_entries" Thanks. Peter