Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [5/25] Tree and gimple ifaces

[Jeff Law]

On 10/30/13 03:26, Richard Biener wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/gimple.c b/gcc/gimple.c
index 3ddceb9..20f6010 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ gimple_build_with_ops_stat (enum gimple_code code, unsigned 
subcode,
  gimple
  gimple_build_return (tree retval)
  {
-  gimple s = gimple_build_with_ops (GIMPLE_RETURN, ERROR_MARK, 1);
+  gimple s = gimple_build_with_ops (GIMPLE_RETURN, ERROR_MARK, 2);

Ick - you enlarge all return statements?  But you don't set the actual value?
So why allocate it with 2 ops in the first place??

[Seems I completely missed that MPX changes "gimple" and the design
document that was posted somewhere??]
I'd assumed that'd be in a follow-up patch and probably would be bounds 
on the return value or NULL if there were no bounds.

I'm terribly concerned about the enlarging of the return statements.  On 
the other hand, if something enlarged a GIMPLE_ASSIGN, then I would have 
called it out for further discussion.



Bah.

Where is the update to gimple.texi and tree.texi?
Good catch.  Ilya, please send a patch to update the docs.