This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=bounds and internal calls in FEs
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:39:23 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=bounds and internal calls in FEs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140616103907 dot GD17965 at redhat dot com> <20140616112304 dot GD19001 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140619145653 dot GL17965 at redhat dot com> <20140619171931 dot GR31640 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140620084304 dot GN17965 at redhat dot com> <20140620085747 dot GV31640 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140620093426 dot GP17965 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:34:26AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:43:04AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > +
> > > + /* Internal function code. */
> > > + ENUM_BITFIELD(internal_fn) ifn : 5;
> >
> > Any reason for the " : 5" here? I mean, the union also contains
> > unsigned int, so it doesn't hurt if you use full 32 bits for it there,
> > and it should be faster and you won't run into problems when we'll have
> > more than 32 internal functions.
>
> The sole reason was that all other ENUM_BITFIELDs have it - on the
> other hand, they're not in a union and here the bit-field is
> pointless. I'll drop it.
Well, no point to use ENUM_BITFIELD either, just use
enum internal_fn ifn;
?
Jakub