This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 14/x] Passes [10/n] Stores handler
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:35:40 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 14/x] Passes [10/n] Stores handler
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141008191247 dot GJ13454 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <5436D947 dot 60003 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYYOyDxKvNat1MkAcmCfX1RPEANnN35JQYoT4LvBNvSbHQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 10/13/14 05:23, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-10-09 22:51 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
On 10/08/14 13:12, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
This patch adds an assignment processing function which is used by lnliner
for newly generated stores.
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich <email@example.com>
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_copy_bounds_for_assign): New.
* tree-chkp.h (chkp_copy_bounds_for_assign): New.
This probably should have been part of the inliner submission since that's
the only place its used and one needs the inliner context to know how this
function is going to be used.
Presumably the reason its not in tree-inline and static is you want to
The code is fine, just want to make sure its goes into a logical place.
I have to export either chkp_copy_bounds_for_assign or
chkp_walk_pointer_assignments with chkp_copy_bounds_for_elem. No much
difference but I'd prefer to keep all memrefs processing codes in