On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:32 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/21 6:26 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > The testcase uses the __seg_fs address space, which is x86-specific, but
> > it isn't in an x86-specific directory or otherwise restricted to x86
> > targets; thus, I'd expect it to fail for other architectures.
> >
> > This is not a review of the rest of the patch.
> >
>
> Good point! I thought I might make the test target-independent
> (via macros) but it looks like just i386 defines the hook to
> something other than false so I should probably move it under
> i386.
The patch is OK with the testcase moved.
Note I don't think we should warn about *(int *)0xdeadbee0,
/* Pointer constants other than null are most likely the result
- of erroneous null pointer addition/subtraction. Set size to
- zero. For null pointers, set size to the maximum for now
- since those may be the result of jump threading. */
there's too much "may be" and "most likely" for my taste. How can
the user mark a deliberate valid constant address?
Maybe we can use better (target dependent?) heuristic based on
what virtual addresses are likely unmapped (the zero page, the
page "before" the zero page)?
Richard.
> Thanks
> Martin
