Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [8/25] Languages support

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/08/13 02:02, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is an updated patch version with no langhook.
>
> Regarding TLS objects issue - I do not think compiler should compensate the absence of instrumentation in libraries.  Compiler should be responsible for initialization of Bounds Tables for .tdata section.  Correct data copy is a responsibility of library.  User should use either instrumented library or wrapper calls if he needs this functionality.
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> --
> gcc/
>
> 2013-11-06  Ilya Enkovich  <ilya.enkovich@intel.com>
>
> 	* c/c-parser.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
> 	(c_parser_declaration_or_fndef): Register statically
> 	initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker.
> 	* cp/decl.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
> 	(cp_finish_decl): Register statically
> 	initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker.
> 	* gimplify.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
> 	(gimplify_init_constructor): Register statically
> 	initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker.
Is parsing really the right time to register these things with the 
checking framework?  Doesn't all this stuff flow through the gimplifier? 
 If so wouldn't that be a better place?

If it can be done in the gimplifier, which seems good from the 
standpoint of simplifying the long term maintenance of the checking code.

If there's a good reason to have this front-end, please explain it.

Thanks,
Jeff