From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30722 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2014 04:33:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30680 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jun 2014 04:33:30 -0000 From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:33:00 -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: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg02192.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #21 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #20) > BTW if you want to try it out I have a branch: > https://github.com/tromey/gcc/tree/add-sparse-attributes This still needs a bit of work. I rebased it to be more patchlike and wrote some ChangeLog entries, but I still need to verify that all the behavior is correct (I forgot a lot of state...) and also write the documentation. That said, recently I've been wondering whether this could be better done as a plugin. I started down the road of simply patching gcc due, I think, to the designated_init attribute, which can't really be done as a plugin. But it seems that perhaps noderef/force/address_space could be; and perhaps also bitwise and nocast. In the "pro" column, as a plugin it could be maintained elsewhere. That might be interesting. In the "con" column, it's a pain if multiple projects want to use these checks. Then it's just one more thing to fetch. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.