Hi, Frank
>Those in turn
>might be represented with almost the normal mf_xform_decls(), while
>letting __builtin_alloca() remain.
How can we just remain __builtin_alloca() only for variable-length array?
Mudflap changes expand_builtin_alloca function.
I think it is enough for apply mudflap in Linux Kernel.
Janboe Ye
2009/7/16 Frank Ch. Eigler <f...@redhat.com>:
>
>> Janboe Ye <yuan-bo...@motorola.com> writes:
>
>>> normally gcc will use expand_builtin_alloca to handle variable array.
>>> But mudflap will force this function to return immediately to invoke
>>> alloca explicit.
>>>
>>> Is there some way to still use expand_builtin_alloca without changing
>>> gcc source code?
>
> I don't think so.
>
>
> Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> writes:
>
>> mudflap can't check accesses to memory allocated using alloca unless
>> it overrides __builtin_alloca.
>
> It can't currently. But instead of redirecting the call to a
> heap-based alloca() wannabe in libmudflap/mf-hooks1.c, perhaps
> mudflap could instrument alloca() by generating code like this
> instead:
>
> __builtin_alloca(N) --> GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY( try {
> ptr = __builtin_alloca(N)
> __mf_register(ptr ...)
> ptr;
> } finally (attached to the function scope) {
> __mf_unregister(ptr ...)
> }
>
> Or perhaps not, if alloca() can be used in loops in way that
> prevents clean nesting of the try/finally.
>
> OTOH, I believe the original poster's case came from gcc-synthesized
> alloca's, coming from variable-length array allocation. Those in turn
> might be represented with almost the normal mf_xform_decls(), while
> letting __builtin_alloca() remain.
>
> Either of these requires gcc changes though.
>
>
>> [...] Although, of course, you could simply not use mudflap for the
>> code in question.
>
> The original poster's purpose is specifically to build bits of the
> linux kernel with mudflap instrumentation.
>
>
> - FChE
>
