From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-72673-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20279 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2003 18:48:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20171 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2003 18:48:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 18:48:44 -0000
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 242A6800095; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:48:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:fche@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3SImhk30029;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:48:44 -0400
Received: (from fche@localhost)
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h3SImhBX030025;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:48:43 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:53:00 -0000
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
To: Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal@eyal.emu.id.au>
Cc: "list, gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: mudflap wrappers [patch]
Message-ID: <20030428184842.GC27406@redhat.com>
References: <3EAA54B6.31D63922@eyal.emu.id.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3EAA54B6.31D63922@eyal.emu.id.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01416.txt.bz2


--Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-length: 1042

Hi -


On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:43:18PM +1000, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> [...]
> opendir() and friends use 'DIR *' which is never a completed
> 	type, so how should I check this pointer? I use a size
> 	of zero - is this "The Right Way"?

I suspect the right approach will be a combination of autoconf
(detecting whether the DIR object's size might be yanked out
of system headers, then stick with that), and a conservative
backup (using size 1).


> shmdt() does not supply the size of the object, which is needed
> 	for the check and the unreg. Again I use zero size, can
> 	I do better?

Sure - you could use the same shmctl() trick you use in shmat().


> In general, when a new object shows up I check it with WRITE mode
> to ensure mf knows it was written to. Any problem with this?  [...]

For opaque system objects like FILE, DIR, I wouldn't bother with
such artificial check calls.  If no directly instrumented read/write
pointers operations are made on them, it doesn't matter whether
libmudflap knows their written-ness.


- FChE

--Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-length: 189

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+rXeKVZbdDOm/ZT0RAlYWAJ9tGkk//F2GICJa4HofI91/qVauGwCbBDMc
VEQ/cKb8AX/DZuMmQ8ASwS8=
=ki1H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr--