From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [CHKP, PATCH] Fix instrumented indirect calls with propagated pointers
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150325101133.GM1746@tucnak.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMbmDYaEc_WPfu4nfgygLRAn-=JkFRv9_c5XJEkqOkthuicvYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:06:46PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > There is still the wasteful pass_fixup_cfg at the start of:
> > PUSH_INSERT_PASSES_WITHIN (pass_local_optimization_passes)
> > NEXT_PASS (pass_fixup_cfg);
> > which wasn't there before chkp. Perhaps this should be a different
> > pass with the same execute method, but gate containing
> > flag_check_pointer_bounds?
>
> IIRC the reason for this pass was a different passes split, not
> instrumentation itself. Previously function processing always started
> with pass_fixup_cfg. Splitting processing into three stages we got
> three pass_fixup_cfg passes.
Sure, but it would be really nice if for !flag_check_pointer_bounds
we really could have just one stage again, rather than 3.
When it is a global option, and for LTO ideally ored in from all the TUs,
that shouldn't be that hard...
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-25 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-12 11:13 Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-19 8:30 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-24 8:33 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-24 9:22 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-24 14:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-24 14:40 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 8:50 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 9:39 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 9:50 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-25 10:06 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 10:11 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2015-03-25 10:20 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 10:15 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 10:24 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 8:05 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 8:16 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-25 8:56 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-04-02 16:28 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-04-10 1:28 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-04-14 14:35 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-05 8:06 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-19 9:40 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-26 13:11 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-29 6:49 ` Jan Hubicka
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=20150325101133.GM1746@tucnak.redhat.com \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=enkovich.gnu@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/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).