From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17984 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 21:18:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17976 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 21:18:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 21:18:46 -0000 Received: from theotherone.redhat-remotie.org (taarna.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.102]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27195; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.fidalgo.net [127.0.0.1]) by theotherone.redhat-remotie.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD6FBB255; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:18:00 -0000 From: Don Howard X-X-Sender: To: Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Andreas Schwab , Michael Snyder , Subject: Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions. In-Reply-To: <200204092109.OAA22862@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? > > Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a > > normal-sized stack limit. Then complain if we hit it at runtime. > > I completely agree with this. After all, if you were willing to > contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE > anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in > the first place---to avoid crashing GDB. > > Paul > I like this approach, also. -- dhoward@redhat.com gdb engineering