[m-rev.] for review: Clarify some code relating to redzones.

[Julien Fischer]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 at 00:43, Zoltan Somogyi <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 00:31:10 +1100, Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 at 00:12, Zoltan Somogyi <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 00:03:34 +1100, Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:

...

> > > That is an argument for soft redzones not being needed, and for documenting
> > > them as not being needed. We may still want to keep the trivial amount of code
> > > supporting them, but if we do, we should add comments saying (a) what functionality
> > > they are intended to support, and (b) that there is nothing to support just yet.
>
> I notice you didn't comment on this part. Do you think soft redzones are needed?
> I don't.

Neither do I; they do not appear to serve any useful purpose at the moment.

> > > > > Do you guys agree?
> > > >
> > > > In principle, sure. I would also offer the following observation:  using names
> > > > like  "redzone" and "hardzone" inside something called a "memory zone" is
> > > > fairly confusing.
> > >
> > > What terminology would you suggest instead?
> >
> > I was trying to think of something.
> >
> >   soft guard pages == soft redzone
> >   hard guard page == hard redzone
>
> That works for me. However, whatever terminology we pick, we have to
> use it *consistently*.

Agreed.

Julien.