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>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:07:10 +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>
2014-05-08 23:28 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
> 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.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> It's in the queue of things to look at, but it's a deep queue at the
>>> moment.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for keeping an eye on it! Hope this year we can start sooner
>> and have enough time to make it with no hurry.
>
> Agreed.
>
> BTW, are you or any colleagues coming to the Cauldron this year in
> Cambridge? It's often helpful to get together and hash through issues in
> person. I think most of the core GCC developers will be there.
I'm coming and have presentation about MPX (technology itself and how
it is used for bounds checker). Don't know how much attention I should
give to implementation details. Wold it be useful there?
Ilya
>
> jeff
>