From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 6B9023851ABB; Wed,  8 Mar 2023 17:38:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6B9023851ABB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678297129;
	bh=RMKZgUOSaqR9DND218A2Gh97AGypsct0b0JIJ2vj0qE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=T9frz5VUxVB7iz69D3l6XsqHxAc9VQpPnn3PkPH7m9pEF5CJsl5tSRvxHo7rNqKsR
	 Q2gsSjg3P2FrC66/RA9upl2Iigp10A4EfsYglNvnF9+MeiHk3cnrmZffQ/ZPGHR5Ci
	 7tSZkRtLx0RwrbMiPkfg3yxvRSW2sy1ynqaaCdTo=
From: "qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/108896] provide "element_count" attribute to give more
 context to __builtin_dynamic_object_size() and -fsanitize=bounds
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:38:49 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108896-4-4DVVXThS4l@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108896-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108896-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108896

--- Comment #26 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #20)
>=20
> I agree. An attribute is simple and extending C will take
> more care (and work).
>=20
> The reason I think we should also extend C (together with
> WG14) is because this would allow writing code where the
> bound is never lost because it is encoded in the type,
> while the=C2=A0 __builtin_dynamic_object_size is extremely
> useful to enhance existing code bases, but is best
> effort only.
>=20
> So I think we should do both.
>=20
Agreed.=