This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, i386, MPX 1/X] Support of Intel MPX ISA
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Areg Melik-Adamyan <areg dot melikadamyan at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:22:39 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386, MPX 1/X] Support of Intel MPX ISA
- References: <CAMbmDYZdrR8t66VtNPFxbz33mMX0M-tMj_Bv=uvrejui_YnVWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307242237420 dot 5307 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMbmDYbNvPh8MiJkgx29Hc+d_czzLeFuxeG4uDz_AozqX3j1cg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307251415290 dot 18813 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMbmDYamg+jwEY6FiZ_+_DT8nqug58Gi5Nf2PSDZ26Bi17K5=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMbmDYYM5Qfayx2yoFyZ4oKUhOi8aD=jWCNMyzEMadSYYC2fqA at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1308072202290 dot 26185 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMbmDYZLgu7XAQfOQkUAmKE1aBt0mwJpr8TWPRbWeKZAZ2S4Dg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMbmDYZP4orKYQhMsXx2vQ6dUgwXY+hbD_m_wQmVFcFgvVQMbg at mail dot gmail dot com>
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