public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
Cc: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"richard.guenther@gmail.com" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
	"jakub@redhat.com" <jakub@redhat.com>,
	"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"siddhesh@gotplt.org" <siddhesh@gotplt.org>,
	"uecker@tugraz.at" <uecker@tugraz.at>,
	"isanbard@gmail.com" <isanbard@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [V1][PATCH 1/3] Provide element_count attribute to flexible array member field (PR108896)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 22:48:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f62bb97-990-b96c-d324-5c78eb6c5eee@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EBFE4136-F92D-440D-896C-30D59FAD7606@oracle.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:

> B. The argument of the new attribute “counted_by” is an identifier that can be
> accepted by “c_parser_attribute_arguments”:
> 
> struct trailing_array_B {
>  Int count;
>  int array_B[] __attribute ((counted_by (count))); 
> };
> 
> 
> From my current very limited understanding of the C FE source code, it’s 
> not easy to extend the argument to an expression later for the above. Is 
> this understanding right?

It wouldn't be entirely compatible: if you change to interpreting the 
argument as an expression, then the above would suggest a global variable 
count is used (as opposed to some other syntax for referring to an element 
of the containing structure).

So an attribute that takes an element name might best be a *different* 
attribute from any potential future one taking an expression (with some 
new syntax to refer to an element).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-15 22:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-25 16:14 [V1][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896) Qing Zhao
2023-05-25 16:14 ` [V1][PATCH 1/3] Provide element_count attribute to flexible array member field (PR108896) Qing Zhao
2023-05-25 21:02   ` Joseph Myers
2023-05-26 13:32     ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-26 18:15       ` Joseph Myers
2023-05-26 19:09         ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-07 19:59         ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-07 20:53           ` Joseph Myers
2023-06-07 21:32             ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-07 22:05               ` Joseph Myers
2023-06-08 13:06                 ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-15 15:09                 ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-15 16:55                   ` Joseph Myers
2023-06-15 19:54                     ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-15 22:48                       ` Joseph Myers [this message]
2023-06-16 15:01                         ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-16  7:21                     ` Martin Uecker
2023-06-16 15:14                       ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-16 16:21                       ` Joseph Myers
2023-06-16 17:07                         ` Martin Uecker
2023-06-16 20:20                           ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-16 21:35                             ` Joseph Myers
2023-06-20 19:40                               ` Qing Zhao
2023-06-27 15:44                                 ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-25 16:14 ` [V1][PATCH 2/3] Use the element_count atribute info in builtin object size [PR108896] Qing Zhao
2023-05-27 10:20   ` Martin Uecker
2023-05-30 16:08     ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-25 16:14 ` [V1][PATCH 3/3] Use the element_count attribute information in bound sanitizer[PR108896] Qing Zhao
2023-05-26 16:12 ` [V1][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896) Kees Cook
2023-05-30 21:44   ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-26 20:40 ` Kees Cook
2023-05-30 15:43   ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-06 18:56   ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-06 21:10     ` Martin Uecker
2023-07-07 15:47       ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-07 20:21         ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-13 20:31     ` Kees Cook
2023-07-17 21:17       ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-17 23:40         ` Kees Cook
2023-07-18 15:37           ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-18 16:03             ` Martin Uecker
2023-07-18 16:25               ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-18 16:50                 ` Martin Uecker
2023-07-18 18:53             ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-19  8:41           ` Martin Uecker
2023-07-19 16:16           ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-19 18:52           ` Qing Zhao
2023-07-31 20:14             ` Qing Zhao
2023-08-01 22:45               ` Kees Cook
2023-08-02  6:25                 ` Martin Uecker
2023-08-02 15:02                   ` Qing Zhao
2023-08-02 15:09                 ` Qing Zhao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f62bb97-990-b96c-d324-5c78eb6c5eee@codesourcery.com \
    --to=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=isanbard@gmail.com \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=siddhesh@gotplt.org \
    --cc=uecker@tugraz.at \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).