On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:02 -0500, Dave Boutcher wrote:
> Without this patch it is perfectly fine to assign non-transaction_safe
> functions to function pointers marked as transaction_safe. Unpleasantness
> happens at run time.
>
> e.g.
>
> __attribute__((transaction_safe)) long (*compare)(int, int);
>
> compare = my_funky_random_function;
>
>
> gcc/c-typeck.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c-typeck.c b/gcc/c-typeck.c
> index fc01a79..69687d6 100644
> --- a/gcc/c-typeck.c
> +++ b/gcc/c-typeck.c
> @@ -5608,6 +5608,13 @@ convert_for_assignment (location_t location, tree
> type, tree rhs,
> }
> }
>
> + /* Check for assignment to transaction safe */
> + if (is_tm_safe(type) && !is_tm_safe_or_pure (rhs)) {
I don't think that assigning a tm_pure function to tm_safe works. There
will be no instrumented version of it. I don't think we generate an
alias or sth like that yet.
When contributing patches, please submit testcases along with it. For
example, regarding this particular problem, I would believe that there
are more cases that we don't check properly yet.
Also, did you do the FSF copyright assignment paperwork yet?
Torvald
