This is the mail archive of the 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, i386, MPX 1/X] Support of Intel MPX ISA

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:

> > That is not a big issue to rename generic names. But I'm just still
> > trying to choose proper names. I looked into -fbounds-check but its
> > description already mention C/C++ and its semantics differs from what
> > new instrumentation does. I consider using -fcheck=pointer (currently
> > valid for Fortran) and 'chkp' instead of 'mpx' for generic things.
> > Does it look OK?
> I just realized that usage of option which is already defined for
> other languages may be problematic when this option is passed to
> MULTILIB_OPTIONS. So, probably, new common option -fcheck-pointers?

Seems reasonable to me.

> > I made an attempt to use multilibs instead. I tried to add mpx variant
> > to target libraries build but got fail for libgfortran build. Does
> > multilib support partial library rebuild? Actually I do not need
> > libgfortran library (an many other libraries) to be in mpx version. Is
> > it possible to get some libs from one place and some libs from another
> > place?

I'm not sure why the libgfortran build would have failed ... maybe some 
libraries don't in fact do anything with pointers for which the checks 
would help, but if so then I'd expect the option simply not to have any 
effect on the code generated for those libraries.  Multilibs are expected 
to be the same for all libraries (but packagers could no doubt optimize 
things in their packages, if in fact some libraries are identical when 
built both with and without MPX).

Joseph S. Myers

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