From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6902 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2014 16:52:09 -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 6884 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2014 16:52:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:52:05 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (vie-188-118-252-235.dsl.sil.at [188.118.252.235]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06BEF3F41A; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:52:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Marek Polacek cc: Jakub Jelinek , GCC Patches , Jason Merrill , "Joseph S. Myers" , Richard Biener , Jeff Law Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement -fsanitize=bounds and internal calls in FEs In-Reply-To: <20140620100234.GA14420@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20140616103907.GD17965@redhat.com> <20140616112304.GD19001@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140619145653.GL17965@redhat.com> <20140619171931.GR31640@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140620084304.GN17965@redhat.com> <20140620085747.GV31640@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140620093426.GP17965@redhat.com> <20140620093923.GW31640@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140620100234.GA14420@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg02301.txt.bz2 On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Marek Polacek wrote: +@item -fsanitize=bounds +@opindex fsanitize=bounds + +This option enables instrumentation of array bounds. Various out of bounds +accesses are detected. Flexible array members are not instrumented, as well +as initializers of variables with static storage. Can you make this "Flexible array members and initializers..." (or "...as well as...")? The current wording confused me a bit at first. And I believe there should be no empty line after @opindex. Gerald