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 17:13:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108896-4-tBNqJ4qaGf@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 #24 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #15)
>
> Yes, but that syntax would be intuitive which I would see
> as an advantage.
Yes, I agree.
>
> But I am not saying we shouldn't have the attribute first.
both the new attribute and the C's syntax extension might be needed at the same
time, I think.
1. Attribute might be better for changing the existing source code to make them
bound-checking friendly;
2. new code can use the C's syntax change, and hopefully this new syntax
extension can be made into next C language standard.
however, I think that both the new attribute and the new C syntax extension
should support the similar user interface. We might need to decide on this
first.
right now, the user interface we cannot agreed on is:
whether we should support the following nested annotation (either with
attribute or with the C syntax extension):
struct object {
...
unsigned int items;
...
struct inner {
...
int flex[];
};
} *ptr;
My opinion is: No, we should not support this, it will make the implementation
much more complicated both for attribute and for C syntax extension.
But I am not very sure on this yet.
Is the PLACEHOLDER_EXPR able to resolve this?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-08 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ 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
2023-03-08 17:13 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
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
2024-05-31 17:50 ` 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-tBNqJ4qaGf@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: link
Be 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).