This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: mudflap problem
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:58:13PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out how to say this in a way that doesn't make
> > me sound ungrateful, but IMO, mudflap just won't be very useful
> > until it incorporates a feature like [adding gaps / fattening up
> > local pointers]. [...]
>
> It's a fair observation. BTW, how does mudflap's performance compare
> to the boundchecker (not having the latter built lately)?
I'm in the opposite boat. I haven't built a GCC that supports mudflap
lately. Last time I did a performance comparison, the sourceforge patches
came out ahead, I think by a factor of about two. This despite the
fact that many more calls were made into its runtime (to do pointer
arithmetic checking) than mudflap made into its runtime.
I'll grab the latest gcc 3.5 snapshot and compare mudflap against
the bounds-checking patches in 3.4.3 and let you know.
--Doug.