This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Set DEMANGLE_RECURSION_LIMIT to 1536
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, sgayou at redhat dot com, Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:52:39 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set DEMANGLE_RECURSION_LIMIT to 1536
- References: <87muprdko7.fsf@redhat.com> <20181130084211.GX12380@tucnak> <173817ca-0aa0-e1a2-6725-37e079ead545@redhat.com> <m3woousm8n.fsf@pepe.airs.com> <20181130140330.GA12380@tucnak> <fa1abe9c-7545-6a48-cbf0-97b993345523@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1gTSXgSiJSFKEWaE0UTGbi45-mWHKJnUb4Wvjp86bbFQ@mail.gmail.com> <460cb971-0e21-1e3e-4920-8b3ee7290cf7@redhat.com> <CAKOQZ8zspME4gzoRw4xgFcShoqeUfp_e=Og=4S-yKn4EehokeA@mail.gmail.com> <736e8303-b724-f96d-54f5-46bff99fa34d@redhat.com> <57d33aa7-4e37-a09c-4bdc-974b5f654d33@redhat.com> <c7c959ca-b8bf-bd3e-a65d-bb274a3118d3@redhat.com> <fca558b7-9ed3-76d0-176c-03f64790e3f1@redhat.com> <2f4c983b-494f-93ba-d6c6-1fe0a9730a76@redhat.com> <CAKOQZ8y=B6beozokJ2tdAAkVDVue08ogehMP7TAXvrPzdz9MuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOomd2E3C03CxTXyTRkq6HG32OX+rbMPS3y6dcEWmwaMYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOokMpaAUFk0rcYTTUQTQhEMn-VQetXfiDTDXYdTXZEJTA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:12 AM Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is the patch OK with you ?
> > >
> >
> > This caused:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88409
> >
>
> Here is the fix. OK for trunk?
I think this points toward the limit being _much_ too low. With template
meta programming you easily get these mangled names, it's not even a
particularly long one. But I'm wondering a bit, without tracing the
demangler, just looking at the symbol name and demangled result I don't
readily see where the depth of recursion really is more than 1024, are
there perhaps some recursion_level-- statements skipped?
Ciao,
Michael.