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, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces

On 10/30/13 04:34, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 30 Oct 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:

Ick - you enlarge all return statements?  But you don't set the
actual value? So why allocate it with 2 ops in the first place??

When return does not return bounds it has operand with zero value
similar to case when it does not return value. What is the difference
In general, when someone proposes a change in the size of tree, rtl or gimple nodes, it's a "yellow flag" that something may need further investigation.

In this specific instance, I could trivially predict how that additional field would be used and a GIMPLE_RETURN isn't terribly important from a size standpoint, so I didn't call it out.

Returns instrumentation. We add new operand to return statement to
hold returned bounds and instrumentation pass is responsible to fill
this operand with correct bounds
Exactly what I expected.

Unfortunately patch has been already installed.  Should we uninstall
it?  If not, then here is patch for documentation.
I think we're OK for now.  If Richi wants it out, he'll say so explicitly.

Thanks, Ilya --


2013-10-30  Ilya Enkovich  <>

* doc/gimple.texi (gimple_call_num_nobnd_args): New.
(gimple_call_nobnd_arg): New. (gimple_return_retbnd): New.
(gimple_return_set_retbnd): New. (gimple_call_get_nobnd_arg_index):
Can you also fixup the GIMPLE_RETURN documentation in gimple.texi. It needs a minor update after these changes.


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