On 04 Mar 2007 16:22:33 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yes, we do plan to participate. That link goes to the SoC page for
gcc. Right now it's still the 2006 one, but I would assume it will
probably the right one once the 2007 setup gets going.
OK - I have updated
http://www.gnu.org/software
"James Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the GCC project participating in the 2007 Google Summer of Code
> project? If so, is the link near the bottom of the page
> http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas.html correct? Do you
> have a list of projec
> Is the GCC project participating in the 2007 Google Summer of Code
> project? If so, is the link near the bottom of the page
> http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas.html correct? Do you
> have a list of project ideas?
Yes, the GCC project is participating. Please
Is the GCC project participating in the 2007 Google Summer of Code
project? If so, is the link near the bottom of the page
http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas.html correct? Do you
have a list of project ideas?
Thanks,
James.
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 01:43, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> > 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> > to the mangler without an va_end().
> > This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> > fr
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> to the mangler without an va_end().
> This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> from/then/to/avoid. In other words, the corresponding aut
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:12, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
> the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
> for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
> portability errors tha
It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
portability errors that could be caught - but it's never been important
enough t
OK, I have put a preview of the tree-check pass (performing lightweight
user-defined checks) on:
http://mygcc.free.fr.
Any comments are welcome.
Nic.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:23, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
>
> > The checks are specified using a new option --
On 03/29/06 16:05, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> Nevertheless, this light approach could be combined with the API-based
> approach, by complementing the (declarative) code patterns with
> (executable) predicates using the API, and loaded as dynamic libraries.
>
Yes, absolutely. Once you have a pluggab
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:23, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Oh, excellent. Coincidentally, we have been thinking about developing
> some kind of plugin/extension framework to allow these classes of
> analyses. One of the goals is to provide an extensibility mechanism
> that will not require rebuilding GC
On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> The checks are specified using a new option --tree-check, and are
> powerful enough to express user-defined memory leaks, null pointer
> dereferences, unreleased locks, etc., but also more basic checks such
> as using an unsafe construct.
>
Oh, excellent.
> Also, in which branch should I port these modifications (4.2,
> 4.1,...) to submit a patch? I originally developed the whole stuff
> on a tree-ssa branch dating January 2004, and then ported it to
> 4.0.1. Porting this to any recent branch should be easy, but which
> one to choose?
If you want
Hi,
During the last two years, I developed a gcc pass called tree-check
that performs user-defined checks on the tree (GIMPLE) form of a
function.
The checks are specified using a new option --tree-check, and are
powerful enough to express user-defined memory leaks, null pointer
dereferences, unr
14 matches
Mail list logo
