On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Hakan Ardo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Hakan Ardo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Hakan Ardo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> is there a better way to fix this? The same kind of issue might arise >>>>> elsewhere? >>>> >>>> Make sure that raw_memcopy has the correct effect on analyzer? >>> >>> What effect would that be? Setting extraeffect=EF_RANDOM_EFFECTS as it >>> can write anywhere? Can I then somehow give ll_arraycopy a more >>> restrictive effectinfo? >> >> Armin commited this on trunk: 78fddfb51114 > > Yes that improves the hack. However it still makes me concerned about > any other (potential future) usages of raw_memcopy. Wont they have the > same issue? > > How about we set extraeffect=EF_RANDOM_EFFECTS in the effectinfo of > raw_memcopy and introduces a decorator that would allow us to lessen > the effect inhertited by a function calling it. Something like: > > def raw_memcopy_effect_in_arraycopy(source, dest, source_start, > dest_start, length): > dest[dest_start] = source[source_start] > > @replace_inherited_effect_of(raw_memcopy, > with=raw_memcopy_effect_in_arraycopy) > def ll_arraycopy(source, dest, source_start, dest_start, length): > ... > raw_memcopy(...) > > > -- > Håkan Ardö >
How many usages of raw_memcopy are there? I guess not very many _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
