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] |
On 10/30/13 12:12, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
OK, I can see how that would be problematical. I'm not entirely sure how you're going to avoid that problem with the argument passing scheme you've built.GIMPLE layout depending on flag_check_pointer_bounds sounds like a recipie for desaster if you consider TUs compiled with and TUs compiled without and LTO. Or if you consider using optimized attribute with that flag.Sorry, I don't follow. Can you elaborate please.I suppose the possile problem here is when we run LTO compiler without -fcheck-pointer-bounds and give instrumented code as input. gimple_call_nobnd_arg would work wrong for instrumented code. Actually there are other places in subsequent patches wich assume that flag_check_pointer_bounds is 1 if we have instrumented code.
At the least, I think an error message would be appropriate if you encounter instrumented code and -fcheck-pointer-bounds isn't on.
Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |