From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-393422-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9641 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2015 11:16:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 125062 invoked by uid 89); 12 Mar 2015 11:13:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-oi0-f42.google.com
Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f42.google.com) (209.85.218.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:13:47 +0000
Received: by oibg201 with SMTP id g201so12513335oib.10        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.76.207 with SMTP id z198mr7629118oia.56.1426151974028; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.187.66 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150312090253.GS1746@tucnak.redhat.com>
References: <20150216152059.GA51560@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20150216153154.GF1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20150216155645.GB51560@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20150216160100.GH1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20150216171531.GC51560@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<CAMbmDYbzEsVznPJJ+oq=ewBOWRkeLswr36wBGhXKxwKb9rxpKg@mail.gmail.com>	<20150309145139.GU1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20150312085151.GH27860@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20150312090253.GS1746@tucnak.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMbmDYa1x3+XNp1x8H2dWY2pOufQgJ2oEOuU+pxQad7mFJWn2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, CHKP, PR target/65044] Restrict pointer bounds checker with Sanitizer
From: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2

2015-03-12 12:02 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:51:51AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> On 09 Mar 15:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:25:43PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > > > --- a/gcc/toplev.c
>> > > > +++ b/gcc/toplev.c
>> > > > @@ -1376,6 +1376,11 @@ process_options (void)
>> > > >      {
>> > > >        if (targetm.chkp_bound_mode () == VOIDmode)
>> > > >         error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported for this target");
>> > > > +
>> > > > +      if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS)
>> > > > +       error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with Address Sanitizer");
>> > > > +
>> > > > +      flag_check_pointer_bounds = 0;
>> > > >      }
>> >
>> > Doesn't this disable -fcheck-pointer-bounds always?
>> > I'd expect you want to clear flag_check_pointer_bounds only if you issued
>> > one of the two errors...
>> >
>> >     Jakub
>>
>> Whoops!  Here is a less destructive version.
>
> Ok for trunk.  Did the old version pass make check?  If so, perhaps you want to add
> (incrementally) some test that would actually verify that
> -fcheck-pointer-bounds does what it should do (e.g. by scanning tree dumps
> etc.).

Thanks!  I sent previous version before make check.  There are several
chkp tests which would fail.

Ilya

>
>         Jakub