2017-06-09 15:21 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi Ilya,
>
> I tried changing builtin call so it gets address of a decl instead of
> a decl, but it looked very unnatural and I hit some other problems
What is unnatural in passing a pointer to a function to get its bounds?
Please show your patch a
Hi Ilya,
I tried changing builtin call so it gets address of a decl instead of
a decl, but it looked very unnatural and I hit some other problems
implementing that. Keeping in mind the exposure of this problem, I
think it is not worth it. I propose to reconsider the first and the
simplest patch in
2017-05-11 0:05 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Didn't quite get your point. I though that the idea is to hit this code:
>
> bounds = chkp_generate_extern_var_bounds (decl);
> ... to get the builtin_sizeof call on this variable and hence to get
> the size relocation. What exactly do you mean
If we use chkp_generate_extern_var_bounds for void variable just as
for arrays with unknown size, we will create the following gimple seq:
# VUSE <.MEM>
__size_tmp.0 = __builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo);
__size_tmp.1_3 = __size_tmp.0;
However, this will fail in verify_gimple_call:
tree arg = gimple_cal
2017-04-04 18:34 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 04/04/2017 09:07 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> When creating static bounds for foo below we end up with:
>>
>> *((unsigned long *) &__chkp_bounds_of_foo + 8) =
>> ~(__builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo) + ((long unsigned int) &foo +
>> 18446744073709
On 04/04/2017 09:07 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi,
When creating static bounds for foo below we end up with:
*((unsigned long *) &__chkp_bounds_of_foo + 8) =
~(__builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo) + ((long unsigned int) &foo +
18446744073709551615));
This fails in gimplify_function_tree with gcc_ass
Hi,
When creating static bounds for foo below we end up with:
*((unsigned long *) &__chkp_bounds_of_foo + 8) =
~(__builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo) + ((long unsigned int) &foo +
18446744073709551615));
This fails in gimplify_function_tree with gcc_assert (!VOID_TYPE_P
(TREE_TYPE (*expr_p)));
Is it OK?
