This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:43:59 -0600
Subject: Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20131021122236 dot GE37888 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <20131024144329 dot GB39638 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <52700F0A dot 3010606 at redhat dot com> <20131029215323 dot GA46971 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAFiYyc3Y9z_6TigcZYhMbHh=nPNuE7HqpcXK+mQUw=JQmWeCDw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131030103410 dot GB46971 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAFiYyc2FYcZ-j0+O80QH8pN7aqfhzWJ0ENkcm3a2w0FVD6efew at mail dot gmail dot com> <52714497 dot 9070707 at redhat dot com> <20131030181243 dot GA54327 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com>

On 10/30/13 12:12, Ilya Enkovich wrote:

GIMPLE layout depending on flag_check_pointer_bounds sounds like
a recipie for desaster if you consider TUs compiled with and TUs
compiled without and LTO.  Or if you consider using optimized
attribute with that flag.

Sorry, I don't follow.  Can you elaborate please.


I suppose the possile problem here is when we run LTO compiler
without -fcheck-pointer-bounds and give instrumented code as input.
gimple_call_nobnd_arg would work wrong for instrumented code.
Actually there are other places in subsequent patches wich assume
that flag_check_pointer_bounds is 1 if we have instrumented code.

OK, I can see how that would be problematical. I'm not entirely surehow you're going to avoid that problem with the argument passing schemeyou've built.

At the least, I think an error message would be appropriate if youencounter instrumented code and -fcheck-pointer-bounds isn't on.



Jeff

References:
- [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Ilya Enkovich
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Ilya Enkovich
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Ilya Enkovich
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Ilya Enkovich
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces
  - From: Ilya Enkovich

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]