Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:55:18 -0500 | From | Michael Meissner <> | Subject | Re: which stack direction? |
| |
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 11:45:36AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > I know of a new high end machine, under gentleman's NDA, which might be > running Linux some day. The compiler people for this machine want to > know if the Linux folks care which way the stack grows. The exact question > is: > > "Does it matter to Linux whether the stacks in user codes run up > (pointer starts at a low address and increments to get more memory) > or down (pointer starts at a high address and decrements to get > more memory)? If it does matter, which is preferred?" > > More details (some stuff removed to protect the guilty :-)
Given that HP has at least announced plans for Linux on their boxes, if there is code in Linux that cares about the stack growth (other than the usual kernal machine dependent files and compiler varargs support), it probably soon will be identified (PA-Riscs have stacks that go in the opposite direction to most machines these days). 10 years ago this was a big problem due to the fact that varargs/stdarg wasn't established practice, and 'real men' wrote their own variable argument handling (I had been worked on the Data General MV/Eclipse C compiler for a couple of years, and it was another machine with the stack going the oppisite direction).
Note, having the stack grow in the oppisite direction, means that you can't have the stack and the heap grow towards each other. Instead one or both areas must be fixed in size.
-- Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions PO Box 98, Ayer Massachusetts, USA 01432-0098 meissner@cygnus.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |