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]

Re: [plugin] Mudflap plugin

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Olatunji Ruwase <tjruwase at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:20:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [plugin] Mudflap plugin
References: <fe7fd8170906171559y463a802eud93073dad5cbdba7@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360906171639o2beb2a08x22ed3eef36273cf3@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>

Andrew Pinski wrote:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Olatunji Ruwase<tjruwase@google.com> wrote:

Hi,
 I ve been working on converting the mudflap bounds checking code in
gcc into a plugin. The attached patch enables me to get a plugin which
is
 functionally equivalent to the gcc mudflap (-fmudflap). By
functionally equivalence, testing the plugin with the existing
libmudflap testuite
 with the following changes to the relevant .exp files shows no regression.


As I mentioned at the GCC summit I think this is a bad idea; I rather
see we promote libmudflap better rather than seeing it turn into
something which is even less used.

I disagree. Whether you implement it in cc1 or in a plugin is just an implementation detail. See my other mail for ideas.

Paolo

References:
- [plugin] Mudflap plugin
  - From: Olatunji Ruwase
- Re: [plugin] Mudflap plugin
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]