From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2112 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2005 22:50:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2102 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2005 22:50:01 -0000 Received: from h-68-164-203-246.nycmny83.covad.net (HELO dberlin.org) (68.164.203.246) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:50:01 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO localhost) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 8114937; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:49:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Question about pointer arithmetics in GIMPLE From: Daniel Berlin To: law@redhat.com Cc: Falk Hueffner , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <1124750356.4397.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <87slx32l9v.fsf@debian.org> <1124750356.4397.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1124750995.13671.18.camel@dyn9002219145> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 > Warning for pointer generation is going to be a *lot* harder and I > suspect will always result in more false positives. In order to increase the accuracy of the data dependence analysis, i do, at some point, plan on tracking the sizes of malloc sites, and giving an upper bound on them (for cases of loops, etc) when possible on an interprocedural basis, that should allow you to generate at least "this is obviously wrong" warnings.