From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25337 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2015 17:12:34 -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 25225 invoked by uid 89); 19 Nov 2015 17:12:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:12:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB02FC0BFBAE; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-42.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.42]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAJHCUZh028057; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:12:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR68337] Don't fold memcpy/memmove we want to instrument To: Ilya Enkovich , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20151119163110.GG42296@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <564E02FE.5020503@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151119163110.GG42296@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg02391.txt.bz2 On 11/19/2015 05:31 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > Currently we fold all memcpy/memmove calls with a known data size. > It causes two problems when used with Pointer Bounds Checker. > The first problem is that we may copy pointers as integer data > and thus loose bounds. The second problem is that if we inline > memcpy, we also have to inline bounds copy and this may result > in a huge amount of code and significant compilation time growth. > This patch disables folding for functions we want to instrument. > > Does it look reasonable for trunk and GCC5 branch? Bootstrapped > and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Can't see anything wrong with it. Ok. Bernd