[Tinycc-devel] Local string behaviour with bound check enabled

[George Sedov]

Hi all,

Sorry to write so many mails in the list, but I don't see other methods of
contacting the dev team :)

I noticed the discrepancy in the compiler behaviour regarding local
strings. Consider this example

void TestFunc() {
char str1[] = "mystring";
char *str2 = "myotherstring";}

There is no meaningful difference between declaring the local string one
way or another, yet the bound check code will generate the bound record in
the first case, and not generate it in the second (see add_local_bounds
function).

BW,
   George
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] Possible bug in memalign

[George Sedov]

Hi all,

I noticed that in all the calls and definitions of memalign in bcheck.c the
signature looks like this: memalign(size_t size, size_t align), while the
definition of the standard memalign is in reverse: memalign(size_t
alignment, size_t size) (see https://linux.die.net/man/3/memalign). Was it
done on purpose or is it an error?

BW,
   George
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] A couple of questions

[George Sedov]

Hi all,

First of all, I noticed that throughout the codebase there is a mix of
spaces and tabs. This makes it very difficult to produce out-of-tree
patches, since most of the editors will replace tabs with spaces. Is there
a reason behind it?

The second question is about the bounds check. In the current
implementation it is common to first access the provided pointer, and only
after that check if it is valid or not (e.g. the __bound_str* functions).
Doesn't it defy the whole purpose of the functions? What is the intended
usecase of this feature?

BW,
   George
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel