This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING 2][PATCH] enhance -Wrestrict to handle string built-ins (PR 78918)
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:14:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PING 2][PATCH] enhance -Wrestrict to handle string built-ins (PR 78918)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <8a0de82f-d68e-9c37-0406-f216e3f92884@gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2SfpGqbMMJwLApTXJ3bwV5BbSP8k62rznRr_uTdwT6bQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1NiQQZ-n22FpJrnBbSqd-CYpOSJqrGf0=HoUDVCG9RFw@mail.gmail.com> <a6dfe657-9ef9-a915-dfc5-157612fdbd91@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc20GFHnT2r5ZACLxaeuMOgu6oLEvR97qXxsOgBigkVY2w@mail.gmail.com> <703424cb-db8c-8aae-9bd2-cece5883a5de@gmail.com> <0266f22c-6ac1-f676-123f-c028905519e5@redhat.com> <d76c8b0b-8fbc-8b4e-fe6d-acdaf9efd81b@gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3xAW=4EeAwqrNRx01_8PTq=a3wdsteqMyx_P2qz+SBRw@mail.gmail.com> <1574f108-5456-711e-6533-73c4711c26f2@gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1Hxfn-8PoTkrsNPSerk-c34deM-zO94if4xVcCxe5kDQ@mail.gmail.com> <40984eff-b156-3315-7bb5-558e9e83bf6c@gmail.com> <ea60148d-4e53-2434-7c9f-c6dd26d3363f@gmail.com> <86344144-d7de-9a92-2e65-9d43536c312b@gmail.com> <11adcf4e-2ed0-c441-2ea7-538fb453b956@gmail.com> <5ffed8d2-4957-898f-590f-b09a3d9ca719@redhat.com> <7b05b1da-da02-1385-5ef6-ba0eee6fc7b1@gmail.com> <d08de941-7697-d1ea-4586-dacd01e53c51@gmail.com>
On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
> In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
> as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
> for overlapping accesses.
>
> While beefing up the tests I found a few minor issues that
> I also fixed (false negatives).
>
> The fallout wasn't quite as bad as I thought, mainly thanks
> to the narrow API for the checker.
So still reading though this, but wanted to start with a question I hope
you can answer quickly.
In terms of coverage -- did we lose much in terms of cases that were
diagnosed in the original version, but aren't in this version?
jeff