This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 1/x] Pointer bounds type and mode
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:36:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 1/x] Pointer bounds type and mode
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140416110003 dot GA16269 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAMbmDYaUfmHmZE9CjAf1iFVKofm9GQgEpwhL2io8gA2279=7jA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc2WU+ea+kS2Lo3A-UeK-konh_vDP3JgkJ_C4vN_7DLjLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5368FB0F dot 5030703 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYZJuNqz6KVu4e_e09shUBPTWUP_CPTU7Y6OvFcdrrH=DA at mail dot gmail dot com> <536BDACE dot 3010603 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpRBw+md239KAOoTJ6wyYSTstjWT5LkZB8=Ya7qxxbkCw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:45 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/08/14 02:17, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. Richi explicitly wanted the entire set approved before staging in
>>>> any of the bits.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought it would be useful to have approved codes in the trunk to
>>> reveal some possible problems on earlier stages. It also requires
>>> significant effort to keep everything in consistency with the trunk
>>> (especially when big refactoring happens) and having some parts
>>> committed would be helpful. Will keep it in a branch for now but let
>>> me know if you change your mind :)
>>
>> I understand -- my preference would to be go go ahead with the stuff that's
>> already been approved, mostly for the reasons noted above. But with Richi
>> wanting to see it go in as a whole after complete review I think it's best
>> to wait. While we could argue back and forth with Richi, it's not a good
>> use of time.
>>
>
> Shouldn't there a git or svn branch for MPX, including run-time library,
> so that people can take a look at the complete MPX change and try
> MPX today as NOP? The only extra requirement is MPX enabled
> binutils.
That would indeed be useful.
Richard.
>
> --
> H.J.