-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/11 02:00, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> So the question is do we want to proceed with any of this work? >> If so I can update the patch, if not I'll go back to my warning >> work :-) > > I think we do want to continue with this work - probably not > removing the faulting dereference though. I'd say we add a > noreturn __builtin_nullptr_deref () in place of it (eventually > doing the path isolation you mentioned above) and warn about the > ones that survive until RTL expansion (where we'd just expand it as > *0 = 0). Seems reasonable. Interestingly enough the path isolation part would be a special case of the path isolation code I want to build anyway.
FWIW, there's other things which we probably want to handle in a similar fashion. For example, out of range array references, particularly those implied by PHIs with out of range indices. > > In fact, the warning part of it might be the most useful piece for > our users ;) Most definitely. Optimizing this stuff was merely a sideshow; I believe the warning bits are far more useful. Jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOurocAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7J3AIAJXwvQdfkXJGDtOvajvnbONy EHH0SQPObDRW97CTNhS2Ky270SRzfZoF0dFAFEwnfoaHISkHxcWnJB6GIjYQZEG0 WJiY2QEJSeXvbX517S2AZLlvVA1Lzq/NFyPtw8I+Z4D23dqFWMF/OIQhBBMqanAN GOmhsTFgn0njv6PR3ksD8Rvlf2GgfpKfrt2b8LFv2eEl1wIGf0uBEMFXgJJVBjcL tWibKpxT9roreEwzoKtPV1Gn+vZ9grclNhQ501l9exzoonIvg+EY9amhUQgtSPFA JeZUOgj3XHI1cWpCHeTMLnkar0w0XtWoqQd//+6RhFmdKFBQA9pV5XdVPJ2A8GA= =vqbV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----