This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: need help with Pointer Bounds Checking documentation
- From: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:47:24 +0300
- Subject: Re: need help with Pointer Bounds Checking documentation
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54E68470 dot 90700 at codesourcery dot com> <CAMbmDYYoshG0-Lx6MOobAZyR1CMaSGwQxU_xmZxXrUyCcepyPA at mail dot gmail dot com> <54E76349 dot 7050508 at codesourcery dot com> <CAMbmDYZ9wRaZdS7Dy-QpNpjiuxTdi6pWSBbgNrW+m5kxMjXfEw at mail dot gmail dot com> <54ECAB15 dot 90807 at codesourcery dot com> <CAMbmDYZFUGpfGoR+Ri3rpLf82ORm27d2w_r5_--K-cwArFjZOw at mail dot gmail dot com> <54EDF54F dot 4040401 at codesourcery dot com>
2015-02-25 19:16 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On 02/25/2015 12:56 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2015-02-24 19:47 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore <email@example.com>:
>>> Poking around, I see that the -fcheck-pointer-bounds and various -fchkp-*
>>> options are listed in c-family/c.opt, but they are not listed in the GCC
>>> manual. The section on intrinsics is not enough, by itself, to tell
>>> how to use this feature. Can we please try to get in the documentation
>>> the options that have been implemented so far? That's a requirement of
>>> GCC coding conventions.
>>> I see Joseph already brought up the issue of missing documentation back
>>> But I cannot find any proposed documentation patch for these options
>> Here it is: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg03010.html
> From that thread, it looks like Jeff Law already approved the code changes
> in the patch. Were you waiting for a documentation maintainer to approve
> the new documentation before committing it? I can see that it needs
> copy-editing and am willing to help with that, but I'd rather not mix that
> up in the same patch with code changes I don't know how to test. Or were
> the bundled code changes withdrawn for some reason? I think it's important
> that the already-committed new command-line options be documented, so we
> need to separate that out if necessary and get it checked in.
Patch is a part of a series which is waiting for additional steering
committee approval due to copyright and a license.