From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30159 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2015 05:34:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30145 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2015 05:34:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:34:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t095YUHU029350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:34:30 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.12] ([10.3.113.12]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t095YTEd015573; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:34:29 -0500 Message-ID: <54AF6865.1030403@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:34:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: Dodji Seketeli , Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20150105135313.GS1667@tucnak.redhat.com> <54AB01CD.8030509@redhat.com> <20150105213903.GA1667@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150105213903.GA1667@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 On 01/05/15 14:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 02:27:41PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 01/05/15 06:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> I'd like to ping 3 patches: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01519.html >>> - PR64344 - -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow fix - the C FE part >>> is approved, but not the sanitizer bits outside of the FE >> OK. >> >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01271.html >>> - PR64265 - tsan support for exceptions >> OK. >> >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00297.html >>> - -fsanitize=vptr support >> How is this different from vtable pointer verification that we already >> support? Is there some reason we can't just use that instead? > > I don't now the current vtable pointer verification too much, but my > understanding of it is that it is hardly usable, because e.g. it requires > libstdc++ to be rebuilt with the verification enabled, otherwise you can't > verify stuff, and that means a performance penalty even for code you don't > want to verify. Unlike that, -fsanitize=vptr is lightweight, and you only > rebuild with it what you want and can have other code kept as is, not > recompiled. OK. I'd forgotten about the "recompile libstdc++" aspect. Sigh. The language independent stuff looks reasonable to me -- you know this code better than I, so it was just a cursory look. Jason should ack the C++ bits. jeff