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: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:10:16 +0400
- 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> <CAFiYyc37oNa+4R_SJwM1V=oTUUJuB-XidEhDpNVNCn1QVh_GiQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <536CDB32 dot 7040107 at redhat dot com>
2014-05-09 17:42 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
> On 05/09/14 04:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Agreed. The ability to checkout the branch, build it and poke at how it
> handled certain things would be incredibly helpful.
We have such branch and instructions on how to use it on Wiki. It has
not been updated for a while though. I'll sync the branch with my
working tree.
Ilya
>
> Jeff