From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30234 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2014 23:05:23 -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 30224 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2014 23:05:23 -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 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 23:05:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A992B3BA42; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eD8H1rZBcHTY; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 771DD2B22058; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:05:18 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Botcazou To: Michael Matz Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Ilya Enkovich Subject: Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 19/x] Support bounds in expand Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 23:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <88506736.6y2fMRvjVt@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.29-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20140602150245.GB53659@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00383.txt.bz2 > IMHO it does. That or introducing a new store_expr_with_bounds (with the > new argument) and letting store_expr be a wrapper for that, passing the > NULL. Basically anything that avoids adding a new parameter for most of > the existing calls to store_expr. That looks so C-ish though... Can't we use a parameter with a default value? -- Eric Botcazou