[PATCH] Internal option to warn on a given stack size.

[Quentin Colombet]

Hi Chandler,

Thanks for the quick answer (unlike me!).

I do not know yet if I will have time to make the implementation to finish this.
Therefore, at the moment, I will not commit the proposed patch and I will not sign up for doing the equivalent of -Wframe-larger-than.

This may change in the next weeks or so :).

-Quentin


On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Chandler, hi Sean,
> 
> I wanted to double check with you what is your opinion about the proposed patch.
> 
> Sean, it seems you agree that this gets in, but additionally we need to make a plan for the future.
> 
> Chandler, you did not want it in until it gets a warning in clang. How Evan’s comment affected your thought?
> 
> If you both agree, I can commit this patch and start a discussion on llvm-dev regarding how we can support backend warnings into clang.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I'm fine with whatever incremental approach towards getting a warning into clang you want to pursue, I just don't want it to muck up the code too much to get there, and I don't want it to languish for the next 6 months without getting there. ;] I'm not sure how much the patch you have helps get us to the right end state (and I do mean I'm not sure, I haven't really thought about it), I just want to make sure that the patches going in are trying to move us toward a clean and maintainable end state.
> 
> If you're signing up to get something in place to finish this and implement (the equivalent of) -Wframe-larger-than=, I don't want to get in the way of whatever seems like a reasonable implementation path to you. =]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130606/6298158d/attachment.html>