public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 16:56:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-108896-4-ZnGQKrjaQG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-108896-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896 --- Comment #23 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #13) > > VLAs and VM types exist since C99 and were made optional in C11. > The minimal change we adopted to make support for VM types > (but not VLAs) mandatory again was: > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2778.pdf So, this will be official in C23? i.e, VM types will be mandatory, but VLA will be optional (and later might be deprecated?) > > I think using PLACEHOLDER_EXPR that are insert into the size > expression and then replaced later by the struct being accessed, > e.g. > > struct foo { > int len; > char buf[PLACEHOLDER_EXPR.len] > }; > > and then later when we have > > struct foo x; > > x->buf > > we would replace in the size of the type for x->buf the placeholder > with x itself. I see. Yes, this will resolve the implementation difficulty for filling the size of the FAM field when the size is the previous declared field in the same structure. > Yes, this was what I wanted to do... My main use case is not flexible > array members but VM types in struct: > > struct foo { > int len; > char (*buf)[.len]; > }; > > > This has less issues because the size of the struct then does not depend > on the length. a little confused here: what's the definition of VM type? it's size will not depend on the ".len" ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-08 16:57 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-02-22 21:26 [Bug c/108896] New: " kees at outflux dot net 2023-02-22 21:31 ` [Bug c/108896] " kees at outflux dot net 2023-02-22 21:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-23 8:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-23 9:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-24 15:44 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-01 22:54 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-01 23:27 ` kees at outflux dot net 2023-03-02 15:50 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-02 17:34 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-02 18:17 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-02 18:34 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-02 19:47 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-02 19:56 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-02 20:07 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-03 20:27 ` isanbard at gmail dot com 2023-03-03 21:32 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-03 23:18 ` isanbard at gmail dot com 2023-03-04 7:52 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-06 19:15 ` isanbard at gmail dot com 2023-03-06 19:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-06 19:38 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-06 19:57 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-06 20:05 ` siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 16:56 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-03-08 17:13 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 17:36 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 17:38 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 17:43 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 17:48 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-08 18:37 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-08 19:20 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 19:47 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-08 20:20 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-03-08 20:47 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-29 16:12 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-04-03 20:29 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-03 21:53 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-04-04 15:07 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-04 16:33 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-04-04 20:08 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-19 16:32 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-03 13:57 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-03 15:32 ` kees at outflux dot net 2023-05-04 15:16 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-05-04 15:30 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-25 18:14 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-25 18:47 ` ndesaulniers at google dot com 2023-10-05 19:54 ` tg at mirbsd dot org 2023-10-05 20:21 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2023-12-27 6:31 ` sean@rogue-research.com 2024-03-06 14:40 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-108896-4-ZnGQKrjaQG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).