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: Bounds checking for TREE_VEC_ELT and related bugs (PR c++/8511)

From: Graham Stott <graham dot stott at btinternet dot com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Zack Weinberg<zack at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org"<gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:30:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Bounds checking for TREE_VEC_ELT and related bugs (PR c++/8511)
References: <80490000.1037311971@warlock.codesourcery.com>

Mark Mitchell wrote:

--On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:10:52 PM +0100 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

| People may do "one past the end" tricks with TREE_VECs, just as they do
| with C arrays; we can decide if we like that or not.  If nobody does it
| now, except for that one C++ case, we can say that it's not allowed.


I would strongly lean toward not allowing it.  If we want to get the
address the of one-past-the-end then, I think, a canonical way to do
it is array + length, or in this particular case

    &TREE_VEC_LENGTH (array) + length


I agree; that's better.

OK, let's definitively not allow TREE_VEC_ELT with an index that doesn't
fit.

We actually have a macro for this already it's TREE_VEC_END

Graham

References:
- Re: Bounds checking for TREE_VEC_ELT and related bugs (PR c++/8511)
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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