From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Luis Lozano <llozano@google.com>,
Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>,
Bhaskar Janakiraman <bjanakiraman@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, C++ front end changes (patch 1 of 3)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <510BF1F7.1000309@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABtf2+QvG8HFtArCOcmpzfSLvAdegEWE+KBZGJCZYDJDLraUFw@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/31/2013 07:24 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -17954,6 +17954,10 @@ mark_class_instantiated (tree t, int ext
>>> + if (flag_vtable_verify)
>>> + vtv_save_class_info (t);
>>
>> Why do you need this here as well as in finish_struct_1?
>
> If we don't have this in both places, then we miss getting vtable
> pointers for instantiated templates.
Why? instantiated templates also go through finish_struct_1. And we
only hit this function for explicit instantiations, not implicit.
>>> + base_id = DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (TREE_CHAIN (base_class));
>>
>> I think you want TYPE_LINKAGE_IDENTIFIER here.
>
> I don't know the difference between DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME and
> TYPE_LINKAGE_IDENTIFIER. We are just trying to get the mangled name
> for the class.
Ah, I guess you don't want TYPE_LINKAGE_IDENTIFIER, as that's the simple
name rather than the mangled one. But for the external name you always
want to look at TYPE_NAME, not TREE_CHAIN (which corresponds to
TYPE_STUB_DECL); in the case of an anonymous class that gets a name for
linkage purposes from a typedef, the latter will have the original
placeholder name, while the former will have the name used in mangling.
>> I don't understand what the qualifier business is trying to accomplish,
>> especially since you never use type_decl_type. You do this in several
>> places, but it should never be necessary; classes don't have any qualifiers.
>
> We used to not have the "qualifier business", assuming that classes
> did not have any type qualifiers. This turned out not to be a true
> assumption. Occasionally we were getting a case where a class had a
> "const" qualifier attached to it *sometimes*.
Why? You are getting a qualified variant of the class somehow. Where
is it coming from?
>> Here you're doing two hash table lookups when one would be enough.
>
> As written the insert function doesn't return anything to let you know
> whether the item was already there or not, which we need to know (we
> use the results here to avoid generating redundant calls to
> __VLTRegisterPair. I suppose we could modify the insert function to
> return a boolean indicating if the item was already in the hashtable,
> and then we could get by with just one call here...
Yep, that's what I was thinking.
>> For that matter, you don't need the array, either; you can just use TYPE_UID
>> for a bitmap key and use htab_traverse to iterate over all elements.
>
> I don't understand how this would work. I think we need the vec, at
> least, to have direct access based on TYPE_UID (which is also the vec
> index).
TYPE_UID is already a property of the type, different from the class_uid
in your patch.
But yes, I guess you do need some way to get from your index back to the
type, so never mind.
>>> +guess_num_vtable_pointers (struct vtv_graph_node *class_node)
>>
>> I would think it would be better to pass the unrounded count to the library,
>> and let the library decide how to adjust that number for allocation.
>
> If there is any computation we can do at compile-time rather than
> run-time, we would rather do it at compile time.
I guess that makes sense.
>>> + var_name = ACONCAT (("_ZN4_VTVI", IDENTIFIER_POINTER (base_id),
>>> + "E12__vtable_mapE", NULL));
>>
> $ c++filt _ZN4_VTVISt13bad_exceptionE12__vtable_mapE
> _VTV<std::bad_exception>::__vtable_map
Interesting. Does this _VTV template appear anywhere else?
Even if we stay with this approach to producing the name, I'd like it to
happen in a (new) function in mangle.c.
>>> +reset_type_qualifiers (unsigned int new_quals, tree type_node)
>>
>> This function is not safe and should be removed; as mentioned above, it
>> shouldn't be needed anyway.
>
> As I explained above, we originally didn't have it and then found we
> really needed it. If you know of a safer or better way to accomplish
> the same thing we would be happy to hear about it.
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT will give you an unqualified variant of any qualified
type.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-01 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CABtf2+ROV47=LoN7v2=R9ef7WVpwZVhtax6TLUu4vrQ-R0Ci-A@mail.gmail.com>
2013-01-30 17:44 ` Jason Merrill
2013-02-01 0:25 ` Caroline Tice
2013-02-01 16:49 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2013-01-23 22:35 Caroline Tice
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=510BF1F7.1000309@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=bjanakiraman@google.com \
--cc=cmtice@google.com \
--cc=dnovillo@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=llozano@google.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).