This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]

Re: C provenance semantics proposal


Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 15:49 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 14:54, Uecker, Martin
> <Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 07:42 -0600 schrieb Jeff Law:
> > > On 4/18/19 6:20 AM, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:45 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 10:32, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > > > 4.) Compilers make sure that exposed objects never
> > > > are allocated next to each other (as Jens proposed).
> > > 
> > > Ugh.  Not sure how you enforce that.  Consider that the compiler may
> > > ultimately have no control over layout of data in static storage.
> > 
> > One maybe only where it matters? I assume the biggest benefit
> > is for local variables and there the compiler has full control.
> > 
> > For arbitrary pointer coming from somewhere, one has no provenance
> > information anyway.
> 
> that's not quite true - one does know that it can't have the same provenance
> as anything created more recently than the incoming pointer

Good point. But then the objects can not be next to each other anyway.

Best,
Martin

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