This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Implement no_sanitize function attribute
- From: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:57:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement no_sanitize function attribute
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <72103b1d-0119-f05d-043d-ca2edf242bf3@suse.cz> <beb96c01-d217-b126-baaa-bcf5682889f4@suse.cz> <20170531083543.GQ24023@tucnak> <83f8580a-03e1-81eb-3216-a1c998810b90@suse.cz> <20170531113321.GT24023@tucnak> <CAFiYyc1G6vsFQiGdreyrf9Vw+E0JuoQYGazXSrENaGzvhy+F=g@mail.gmail.com> <20170531115102.GU24023@tucnak>
On 05/31/2017 01:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Just wanting to add that "ab-"using options/variables to implement
>> what are really
>> function attributes doesn't look very clean. Unless the plan is to get rid of
>> function attributes in favor of per-function options.
>
> Function attribute here is one thing (the way user writes it) and that
> combined with the command line options determines the sanitization performed
> (the function attributes only say what sanitization flags should be
> ignored). The proposed per-function variable is just a cache of this
> information, because parsing function attributes every time is way too
> expensive.
But one the other hand every function decorated with such attribute will lead
to having a separate copy of struct cl_optimization, which is quite big structure.
Another question is how often such attribute is used, I guess usage is quite rare?
Martin
>
> Jakub
>