Re: [GSoC][analyzer-c++] Submission of a draft proposal

On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 18:46 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote: > Following last mail, a classic I forgot to link my draft ! > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaLDo-Rt8yrJIvC1MO8SmFc6fp4eRQM_JeSdv-1kbsc/edit?usp=sharing Some notes: * The document still has some notes in italics marked "[RFC]" whic

[GSOC] Submission of draft proposal for Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Sorry, I messed subject in my previous two emails :( so I am sending it again. I have completed a draft proposal for this project. I will appreciate Jan, Martin, or anybody else feedback on the same. Here is the link to my proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9kzsU96kOYfIhWZx62jx4ALG-J_aJs

Fwd: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

-- Forwarded message - From: Rishi Raj Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 05:57 Subject: Re: [GSOC] Submission of draft proposal. To: Jan Hubicka Cc: , oops, I forgot to change the subject in previous email :( Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this project.

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this project. I will appreciate your's, Martin's, or anybody else feedback on the same. Here is the link to my proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9kzsU96kOYfIhWZx62jx4ALG-J_aJs5U0sDpwFUtts/edit?usp=sharing On Tue, 4 Apr 20

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Hello, > While going through the patch and simple-object.c I understood that the > file simple-object.c is used to handle the object file format. However, > this file does not contain all the architecture information required for > LTO object files, so the workaround used in the patch is to read th

RE: GSoC Separate Host Process Offloading

Hi Adi! I've not been able yet to review your items in detail, but it's very good that you're discussing your ideas! At least a few comments: On 2023-04-01T03:16:28+, "Prasad, Adi via Gcc" wrote: > Tobias wrote: >> [...] permit something like -foffload=host instead of having to >> specify -

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

While going through the patch and simple-object.c I understood that the file simple-object.c is used to handle the object file format. However, this file does not contain all the architecture information required for LTO object files, so the workaround used in the patch is to read the crtbegin.o fi

RE: GSoC Separate Host Process Offloading

Hello, On Sat, Apr 01 2023, Prasad, Adi via Gcc wrote: > Hi Tobias and Thomas, > > My apologies for the double email; I have an unrelated administrative > ask. Would it be possible to provide any past successful GSoC > proposals? I'm interested in any thnigs GCC specifically is looking > for in pr

Re: [GSoC][analyzer-c++] Submission of a draft proposal

Following last mail, a classic I forgot to link my draft ! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaLDo-Rt8yrJIvC1MO8SmFc6fp4eRQM_JeSdv-1kbsc/edit?usp=sharing Best, Benjamin. On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:44 PM Benjamin Priour wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:38 AM David Malcolm wrote:

Re: [GSoC][analyzer-c++] Submission of a draft proposal

Hi David, On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:38 AM David Malcolm wrote: > > To be fair, C ones can be as well; the analyzer's exploded graphs tend > to get very big on anything but the most trivial examples. > > > [...snip...] > > Indeed - you'll have to do a lot of looking at gimple IR dumps, what > t

Re: GSoC Separate Host Process Offloading

Hi Tobias and Thomas - just wondering if you've had a chance to look at this? Thanks, Adi From: Prasad, Adi Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 5:16 am To: Tobias Burnus ; Thomas Schwinge Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: GSoC Separate Host Process Offloading Hi Tobi

Re: Re: GSoC: want to take part in `Extend the static analysis pass for CPython Extension`

Hello, On Mon, Apr 03 2023, Eric Feng via Gcc wrote: > Hi Steven, > > I’m happy to collaborate on this project together — it would be great > to have your experience with CPython internals on the team. > While I normally welcome collaboration, please note that GSoC rules and reasonable caution di

Re: Re: GSoC: want to take part in `Extend the static analysis pass for CPython Extension`

Hi Steven, I’m happy to collaborate on this project together — it would be great to have your experience with CPython internals on the team. > And by the way, I can get to work long before the start-coding time point of > GSoC timeline. I can be involved in some capacity before the start-codin

Re: [GSoC] Interest and initial proposal for project on reimplementing cpychecker as -fanalyzer plugin

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Dave! I’m happy to collaborate on this project with Steven. I will reply in more detail in the other thread. Best, Eric On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 7:28 PM David Malcolm wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-04-01 at 19:49 -0400, Eric Feng wrote: > > > For the task above,

Re: GSoC: want to take part in `Extend the static analysis pass for CPython Extension`

I do not have specific ideas on (c). I prefer to work on (b) if possible. The PEP 701 branch is under active development now. I review others' PRs and open some PRs myself. https://github.com/pablogsal/cpython/pull/54 https://github.com/pablogsal/cpython/pull/61 https://github.com/pablogsal/cpyth