Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here are more details about the scenario that I was thinking of.
> Suppose the actual function's signature is `char *F (void);' but F
> exists only in the non-BP library. 'configure' will compile a
> declaration `char F ();' in BP mode. My understanding
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The check shouldn't depend on CFLAGS. That's too fragile, as bounds
> checking can be turned on by means other than CFLAGS. For example,
> the flag might be in CC, or gcc might be a shell script that invokes
> /bin/gcc -fbounded-pointers.
Agreed. All
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's definitely not, and I had intended to make this clear in my
> reply. But proponents of weird features may point at
> bounded-pointers, which *they* might consider weird, and use it to
> convince us to accept their weird feature. Of course, we m
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This sounds reasonably reasonable :-), but I wonder if people wouldn't
> complain about the additional seldom-used code in the configure
> script.
Do people complain about such things? I expect that most just
run the script without ever looking insi
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Autoconf shouldn't keep track of which functions have pointers in
> their signatures. There are too many of them, with too many variants
> on different hosts, and the variants mutate too rapidly.
I agree.
> We can keep AC_CHECK_FUNC around for backward
I am implementing bounds checking in gcc and glibc.
glibc changes are almost all checked into CVS.
Next week, I'll start checking in gcc mods.
First some background:
My approach uses "bounded pointers". A bounded pointer is a 3-word
object that carries the normal pointer value along with a low
