This is the mail archive of the 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]

PING [PATCH] specify large command line option arguments (PR 82063)


On 06/24/2018 03:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Storing integer command line option arguments in type int
limits options such as -Wlarger-than= or -Walloca-larger-than
to at most INT_MAX (see bug 71905).  Larger values wrap around
zero.  The value zero is considered to disable the option,
making it impossible to specify a zero limit.

To get around these limitations, the -Walloc-size-larger-than=
option accepts a string argument that it then parses itself
and interprets as HOST_WIDE_INT.  The option also accepts byte
size suffixes like KB, MB, GiB, etc. to make it convenient to
specify very large limits.

The int limitation is obviously less than ideal in a 64-bit
world.  The treatment of zero as a toggle is just a minor wart.
The special treatment to make it work for just a single option
makes option handling inconsistent.  It should be possible for
any option that takes an integer argument to use the same logic.

The attached patch enhances GCC option processing to do that.
It changes the storage type of option arguments from int to
HOST_WIDE_INT and extends the existing (although undocumented)
option property Host_Wide_Int to specify wide option arguments.
It also introduces the ByteSize property for options for which
specifying the byte-size suffix makes sense.

To make it possible to consider zero as a meaningful argument
value rather than a flag indicating that an option is disabled
the patch also adds a CLVC_SIZE enumerator to the cl_var_type
enumeration, and modifies how options of the kind are handled.

Warning options that take large byte-size arguments can be
disabled by specifying a value equal to or greater than
HOST_WIDE_INT_M1U.  For convenience, aliases in the form of
-Wno-xxx-larger-than have been provided for all the affected

In the patch all the existing -larger-than options are set
to PTRDIFF_MAX.  This makes them effectively enabled, but
because the setting is exceedingly permissive, and because
some of the existing warnings are already set to the same
value and some other checks detect and reject such exceedingly
large values with errors, this change shouldn't noticeably
affect what constructs are diagnosed.

Although all the options are set to PTRDIFF_MAX, I think it
would make sense to consider setting some of them lower, say
to PTRDIFF_MAX / 2.  I'd like to propose that in a followup

To minimize observable changes the -Walloca-larger-than and
-Wvla-larger-than warnings required more extensive work to
make of the new mechanism because of the "unbounded" argument
handling (the warnings trigger for arguments that are not
visibly constrained), and because of the zero handling
(the warnings also trigger


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