Re: [CHECKER] 37 stack variables >= 1K in 2.4.17

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:01:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> if you see all possible paths through the program as a tree which branches 
> for every decision then you only need to cut off the branches that are 
> actually pointing upward the tree again. This would still allow to follow
> down into the callees of the recursive function because there should be 
> at least one path that is non recursive (if not Checker should definitely
> complain ;) 
> e.g.
>        ----<-----------------+
> 	   v                     |
>  IF   TRUE                RECURSION
> -------+------ some path ----+
>        |
> 	  ELSE                    non recursive path 
>        +-------------------------- other functions ---------->
> Other functions can be still checked, you only need to prune the cycle.
> I have no idea if checker's algorithms actually work like this, but I could
> imagine that it would be one possible implementation.

Why would you do it this way? AFAICT this is more naturally phrased as
cycle detection in a digraph.

Cheers,
Bill