This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: pointer checking run time code

From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
Cc: shreyas76 at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:58:24 +0200
Subject: Re: pointer checking run time code
References: <24389fb305091706412acf8053@mail.gmail.com><432C2105.5000904@adacore.com>

* Robert Dewar:

> shreyas krishnan wrote:
>
>> Ideas, other pointers would be great
>
> Note that of course this kind of check is standard in Ada
> and hence in GNAT, so you can get an idea from GNAT
> generated code how well the backend can eliminate
> such checks (answer: getting better with gcc 4).

Doesn't it eleminate too many checks, even? 8-/

And, to be absolutely honest, Ada only requires a small subset of all
the checks that are required to make pointers completely safe.  Once
you use 'Unchecked_Access, Unchecked_Deallocation, or GNAT's
'Unrestricted_Access, all bets are off.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: pointer checking run time code
  - From: Robert Dewar

References:
- pointer checking run time code
  - From: shreyas krishnan
- Re: pointer checking run time code
  - From: Robert Dewar

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