I don't really disagree with either your or Evan's meta points. =] I agree
something in this form *should* go into the tree.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
I definitely want this designed and implemented in the right way.
This is the key. I never saw
On May 29, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
I don't really disagree with either your or Evan's meta points. =] I agree
something in this form *should* go into the tree.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
I definitely want this designed and
Author: nlopes
Date: Fri May 25 12:04:42 2012
New Revision: 157483
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=157483view=rev
Log:
add CodeGen support for the alloc_size attribute
Added:
cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/alloc_size.c
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp
Modified:
Suggestion: use the stack-based SmallVector instead of std::vector. Also, a
CXXMethodDecl might be a static method, so you'll need to check isInstance() as
well.
Jordy
On May 25, 2012, at 13:04, Nuno Lopes wrote:
Author: nlopes
Date: Fri May 25 12:04:42 2012
New Revision: 157483
URL:
Nuno, this patch didn't get reviewed before commit. The LLVM review is
ongoing, and seems to indicate the solution is not yet ready. Folks have
also raised serious concerns about the implementation strategy here.
While supporting the alloc_size attribute at least enough to parse it and
reject
Fixed in r157500.
Thanks for the review,
Nuno
Citando Jordy Rose jedik...@belkadan.com:
Suggestion: use the stack-based SmallVector instead of std::vector.
Also, a CXXMethodDecl might be a static method, so you'll need to
check isInstance() as well.
Jordy
On May 25, 2012, at 13:04,
There has been some discussion on both the bounds checking and the
alloc_size proposals on the various mailing lists (dev commits) for
the past month.
Yes, the design is not finished. But I've been making changes to the
implementation to accommodate the feedback.
Nuno
Citando Chandler
On May 25, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nuno Lopes nunoplo...@sapo.pt wrote:
There has been some discussion on both the bounds checking and the alloc_size
proposals on the various mailing lists (dev commits) for the past month.
Yes, the design is not finished. But I've been making changes to the
The primary concerns I have seen so far are it doesn't serve the needs for all
memory safety techniques. Did I miss some other specific concern about
alloc_size attribute?
I think I should address the recent discussions the LLVM side wrt to the bounds
checking pass. I've been following the
On May 25, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
The primary concerns I have seen so far are it doesn't serve the needs for
all memory safety techniques. Did I miss some other specific concern about
alloc_size attribute?
On another note, one part of Nuno's goal for the summer is to implement
10 matches
Mail list logo
