[PATCH] Add a "no-split-stack" function attribute.

[Joerg Sonnenberger]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:02:40AM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> Also, the semantics that they want for a no_split_stack (or no
> attribute if we drop the option) is that the function is only used in
> special situations and llvm should not worry about the its callers.

So, how much stack is it going to get? Noone answered that question so
far. Will it work for the next caller? I strongly believe that this is
just asking for hard to trace down stack overflows down the ilne...

Joerg