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: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 15:07:14 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-108896-4-ttHiZiNRuK@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 #37 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #36) > > I considered pointers to arrays: > > struct P { > int n; > char (*buf)[.n]; > }; > Okay. Then for the field "buf", it has a pointer type, the size of this field is a compile-time constant. where in the IR do you put the ".n" (the size of the array this pointer points to). That's the place I am trying to understand from your patch or from the IR dump of a working small testing case. > the FAM case needs more work and I guess there are > still many other problems with the patch. > For the FAM case, since the field itself is an ARRAY type, then the ".n" can be naturally put to the SIZE of the type of the field. Another thing I'd like to point out, for the original intention of this PR, FAM case is more important than the pointer to array case, I think. So, should we focus on FAM first? > > The comments in > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970 > > imply that the size information does not survive long enough need to study this a little bit more. > But the size expression is evaluated each time when the member is > accessed. How to represent this in IR? > Maybe the size expressions should be limited to very simple expressions without side effects. agreed. but I think we might want to focus on FAM first.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-04 15:07 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 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 [this message] 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-ttHiZiNRuK@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).