This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [2/25] Builtins
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:23:39 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [2/25] Builtins
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131021114918 dot GB37888 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <5268426E dot 7080102 at redhat dot com> <52684E35 dot 5050401 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYaD84V80oQyzOEPq1RmSYfm5rOa3YRVWVsOKNjWRLiKRQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 10/24/13 02:36, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2013/10/24 Richard Henderson <email@example.com>:
On 10/23/2013 02:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Out of curiosity, did you consider and/or discuss with Richard whether or not
to make these target-dependent or target-independent builtins? I realize it's
a bit problematic with Richard being involved during the NDA portion and
someone else during the review/integration portion, but that's unfortunately
where we are.
I suggested that they be target independent.
I suggested that there was nothing in MPX that couldn't be
done generically, if slower, on non-MPX hardware.
E.g. there's no reason why bounds couldn't be packed into a
double-word integer, and the checking builtins completely
outlined into a runtime library.
I suggested that the optimization done on the bound type
would help a generic mudflap replacement.
Right. The design implies generic support of Pointers Checker without
MPX support on hardware. This series does not include generic support.
We are currently examining priority of this task. Suppose generic
support of Pointers Checker may replace Mudflap. Do not know yet if
Pointers Checker may borrow some stuff from Mudflap.
OK. Thanks for the clarifications.