[Gc] Absurd stack bottom value on ARM
hans.boehm at hp.com
Mon Mar 16 15:14:31 PST 2009
I think this assertion used a fairly arbitrary value in order to catch cases in which we misunderstood the /proc/self/stat format or the like. Since we now have a reason to be less arbitrary, I'd suggest chopping two zeroes off the constant in the test. A value of less than a megabyte would be really suspicious, since it wouldn't give us much room for a downward-growing stack, and we have reasons to believe that the only platform with upward-growing stacks (PA-RISC) doesn't do this either.
I'll apply this patch to the CVS tree.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com
> [mailto:gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com] On Behalf Of Michael Starzinger
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:39 PM
> To: gc at napali.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: [Gc] Absurd stack bottom value on ARM
> As you might be aware, we are using the Boehm GC in CACAO 
> at the moment. Recently we received a bug report about a
> failing assertion on an ARM board (Openmoko Neo Freerunner)
> running the Openmoko firmware.
> Please take a look at our Bugzilla entry  for a detailed
> description of the problem.
> Currently I don't have access to an Openmoko installation, so
> I'm merely forwarding the information I received. The bugging
> assertion  is still present in the recent 7.1 version of
> the Boehm GC, so I am assuming that it hasn't been addressed yet.
> Is it OK to simply remove the bugging assertion for our purposes?
> Does the "absurd stack bottom value" have any other side effects?
>  http://www.cacaovm.org/
> Gc mailing list
> Gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
More information about the Gc