On 18 Sep 21:09, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/18/14 13:34, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >2014-06-11 18:00 GMT+04:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>: > >>Hi, > >> > >>This patch adds i386 target hooks for Pointer Bounds Checker. > >> > >>Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64. > >> > >>Thanks, > >>Ilya > >>-- > >>gcc/ > >> > >>2014-06-11 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> > >> > >> * config/i386/i386.c: Include tree-iterator.h. > >> (ix86_function_value_bounds): New. > >> (ix86_builtin_mpx_function): New. > >> (ix86_load_bounds): New. > >> (ix86_store_bounds): New. > >> (ix86_load_returned_bounds): New. > >> (ix86_store_returned_bounds): New. > >> (ix86_fn_abi_va_list_bounds_size): New. > >> (ix86_mpx_bound_mode): New. > >> (ix86_make_bounds_constant): New. > >> (ix86_initialize_bounds): > >> (TARGET_LOAD_BOUNDS_FOR_ARG): New. > >> (TARGET_STORE_BOUNDS_FOR_ARG): New. > >> (TARGET_LOAD_RETURNED_BOUNDS): New. > >> (TARGET_STORE_RETURNED_BOUNDS): New. > >> (TARGET_CHKP_BOUND_MODE): New. > >> (TARGET_BUILTIN_CHKP_FUNCTION): New. > >> (TARGET_FN_ABI_VA_LIST_BOUNDS_SIZE): New. > >> (TARGET_CHKP_FUNCTION_VALUE_BOUNDS): New. > >> (TARGET_CHKP_MAKE_BOUNDS_CONSTANT): New. > >> (TARGET_CHKP_INITIALIZE_BOUNDS): New. > > > >I have comments from the implementation side, but IMO Jeff (CC'd) > >should give the final approval on the functionality and general > >approach of the patch. I was not able to follow the meaning and logic > >behind SLOT (which may be register ?), PTR, TO, and special BND > >addresses. > Most, if not all of the general principle has been approved, > including the creation of the target hooks that Ilya wants to > exploit in the x86 backend. > > Given that we've got two folks (Uros & myself) that have really > struggled wrapping our heads around the docs for the new hooks, > particularly those related to passing parameters & their bounds, I'd > like Ilya to make another attempt to clarify the docs around those > hooks.
I recall I worked on documentation of target hooks used to load/store bounds and believe I made it much cleaner. I didn't duplicate new descriptions for i386 implementations though. Thus I suppose Uros read old less informative descriptions in i386.c rather than better ones in tm.texi. I copy more informative descriptions now to i386.c and hope it will be more clear what these functions do. Thanks, Ilya > > Uros, if you could go ahead and give your implementation side > comments, it'd be appreciated. I wouldn't expect major changes to > the implementation to occur as a result of further iteration on the > docs for the hooks. > > Thanks, > Jeff >
