Thanks a lot for the info.
Qing
> On Mar 20, 2023, at 6:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly allows
>> contractions”? If
Hi,
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 04:38:41PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> NO. We have this debate every few years and such.
>>
>> So, what’s the major reason we keep the default that is
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure. (PR77650)
"GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size per
-fstrict-flex-arrays.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
*
to save space in the IR.
and corresponding changes to support such sharing.
3. I also changed the code inside tree-object-size.cc to make it cleaner
and easier to be understood.
bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64 and x86.
Okay for commit?
thanks.
Qing
Qing Zhao (2):
Handle
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 04:38:41PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> NO. We have this debate every few years and such.
>>
>> So, what’s the major reason we keep the default that is not IEEE754
&
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:25 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, we discovered some floating point precision diffs when using GCC8
>> to build our
>>
Hi,
Recently, we discovered some floating point precision diffs when using GCC8 to
build our
application on arm64: After some investigation, it turns out that this is due
to the
-ffp-contract=fast option that is on by default. Therefore, we have to
explicitly add
-ffp-contract=off and do a
we can completely delete this case from GCC support.
Right now, GCC’s implementation cannot handle such case consistently. So, how
to document this case is really hard.
> On Mar 14, 2023, at 11:26 PM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>
> On 2/24/23 11:35, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2023, at 5:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>> Do you have more comments on my responds to your previous questions?
>
> No, generally we're not good at naming the shared bits, so
Hi, Richard,
Do you have more comments on my responds to your previous questions?
thanks.
Qing
> On Mar 10, 2023, at 8:48 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 10, 2023, at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On
> On Mar 12, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> On 3/2/23 17:03, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Ping.
>
> It looks to me like there is an associated code patch (for PR101832) that is
> still under technical discussion?
Yes, the 1st patch in
> On Mar 10, 2023, at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
>> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
>> __bu
Honza,
Thanks a lot for your information.
> On Mar 8, 2023, at 8:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> Hi, Jan,
>>
>> I am studying one profiling feedback ICE bug with GCC8 recently.
>> It’s an assertion failure inside the routine “compute_working_sets”of
>> gcov-io.c:
>>
>>
Hi, Jan,
I am studying one profiling feedback ICE bug with GCC8 recently.
It’s an assertion failure inside the routine “compute_working_sets”of gcov-io.c:
gcov_nonruntime_assert (ws_ix == NUM_GCOV_WORKING_SETS);
After some debugging and study, I found that the corresponding .gcda file has
two
Ping.
Qing
> On Feb 24, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
> another structure.
>
> "GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
> member", or a union c
Ping.
Qing
> On Feb 24, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
> __builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible s
Ping
Qing
> On Feb 24, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi, Joseph and Richard,
>
> Could you please review this patch and let me know whether it’s ready
> for committing into GCC13?
>
> The fix to Bug PR101832 is an important patch for kernel security
> pur
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 4:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 07:19:40PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Understood.
>> So, your patch fixed this bug, and then [0] arrays are instrumented by
>> default with this patch.
>>
>>> Well,
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 04:13:28PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2023, at 3:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
>>> wrote:
>>> I think -fstrict-flex-arrays* options can be considered a
Hi, Jakub,
Thanks a lot for fixing this issue.
I have several questions in below:
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 3:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> I think -fstrict-flex-arrays* options can be considered as language
> mode changing options, by default flexible member-like arrays are
>
Ping.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
Subject: [V2][PATCH] Fixing PR107411
Date: February 21, 2023 at 9:46:04 AM EST
To: ja...@redhat.com<mailto:ja...@redhat.com>,
rguent...@suse.de<mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
* The
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
* c-decl.cc
of
another structure.
5. add a new warning option -Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end for
identifing all such cases.
bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64 and x86.
Okay for commit?
thanks.
Qing
Qing Zhao (2):
Handle component_ref to a structre/union field including C99 FAM
[PR101832
> On Feb 23, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> But the following:
>>
>> struct flex1 { int length1; char data1[]; };
>> struct flex2 { int length2; char data2[]; };
>> union uni
> On Feb 23, 2023, at 5:04 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2023, at 4:24 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>> +@item
>>> +The structure with a C99
> On Feb 23, 2023, at 4:24 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> +@item
>> +The structure with a C99 flexible array member is the field of
>> +another union, for example:
>> +
>> +@smallexample
&g
Ping * 2.
Hi, Joseph and Richard,
Could you please review this patch and let me know whether it’s ready for
committing into GCC13?
thanks.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
Subject: [v3][PATCH 2/2] Update documentation to clarify a GCC ext
Ping * 2.
Hi, Joseph and Richard,
Could you please review this patch and let me know whether it’s ready for
committing into GCC13?
This is an important bug that need to be fixed for kernel security purpose.
thanks.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com
This is the 2nd version of the patch.
compared to the first version, the major change is:
use sprintf to replace xasprintf per Jacub's suggestion.
bootstrapped and regression tested on both x86 and aarch64.
Okay for committing?
thanks.
Qing
===
This is a bug in
> On Feb 20, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:04:51PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1
> On Feb 17, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:26:03PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> + else if (!DECL_NAME (lhs_var))
>> +{
>> + char *lhs_var_name_str
>> += xas
This is a bug in tree-ssa-uninit.cc.
When doing the following:
/* Ignore the call to .DEFERRED_INIT that define the original
var itself as the following case:
temp = .DEFERRED_INIT (4, 2, “alt_reloc");
alt_reloc = temp;
In order to avoid generating warning for the fake
Ping…
Qing
> On Feb 10, 2023, at 7:50 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> on structure with C99 flexible array member being nested in another structure.
>
> This is also fixed PR77650.
>
> " GCC extension accepts a structure containing a ISO C99 "flexible array
&
Ping…
Qing
> On Feb 10, 2023, at 7:50 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
> __builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible s
Ping…
Qing
> On Feb 10, 2023, at 7:50 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> These are the 3rd version of the patches for PR101832, to fix
> builtin_object_size to correctly handle component_ref to a
> structure/union field that includes a flexible array member.
>
> also includes a
Thank you for fixing this issue.
Qing
> On Feb 15, 2023, at 2:19 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> Tested for cris-elf. Ok to commit?
>
> -- >8 --
> Looks like there's a failed assumption that
> sizeof (union U { char u1[5]; int u2; float u3; }) == 8.
> However, for "packed" targets like
These are the 3rd version of the patches for PR101832, to fix
builtin_object_size to correctly handle component_ref to a
structure/union field that includes a flexible array member.
also includes a documentation update for the GCC extension on embedding
a structure/union with flexible array
on structure with C99 flexible array member being nested in another structure.
This is also fixed PR77650.
" GCC extension accepts a structure containing a ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
* c-decl.cc
Thanks, Kees.
If there is no objection, I will update my patches with this. And send the
updated patches soon.
Qing
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 11:46 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 02:40:57PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> So, the major question here is:
>>
>
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 6:18 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 2:09 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>> But I noticed that “flexible_array_type_p” l
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 5:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 2:09 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> But I noticed that “flexible_array_type_p” later was moved from FE to
>> middle-end and put into tree.cc, tree.h as a general utility routine, and to
>
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 2:20 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-08 14:09, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> What must be avoided is -pedantic diagnostics for
>> struct flex1 { int n; int data[1]; };
>> struct out_flex_end1 { int m; struct flex1 flex_data; };
>> regardless of whether considered
I found a bug with this patch, will fix it and send out the updated patch.
Please ignore this one.
sorry.
Qing
> On Feb 6, 2023, at 8:47 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> This is the 2nd version of the patch, compare to the first version, the major
> changes are:
>
> 1
> On Feb 7, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Then, this routine (flexible_array_type_p) is mainly for diagnostic purpose.
>> It cannot be used to determine whether the structure/union type recursive
> On Feb 7, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> 1. Structure with flexible array member embedded into other structures
>> recursively, for example:
>>
>> struct A {
>> int n;
>>
> On Feb 7, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-06 18:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> In GCC14:
>>>
>>> 1. Include this new warning -Wgnu-varaible-sized-type-not-at-end to
Hi, Joseph,
> On Feb 6, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> In GCC14:
>>
>> 1. Include this new warning -Wgnu-varaible-sized-type-not-at-end to -Wall
>> 2. Deprecate this extension from
> On Feb 6, 2023, at 4:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2023, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>
This is the 2nd version of the patch, compare to the first version, the major
changes are:
1. Add a new IR bit in tree_type_common: type_include_flexarray, set this bit
in FE for struct/union types that include a flexible array member (per
-fstrict-flex-arrays) at the end.
2. Check
Okay, thanks all for the comments and suggestions.
Based on the discussion so far, I have the following plan for resolving this
issue:
In GCC13:
1. Add documentation in extend.texi to include all the following 3 cases as GCC
extension:
Case 1: The structure with a flexible array member is
> On Feb 2, 2023, at 11:25 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-02 03:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>> looking at PR77650 what seems missing there is the semantics of this
>> extension as expected/required by the glibc use. comment#5 seems
>> to suggest that for my example above its
> On Feb 3, 2023, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>>
&g
> On Feb 2, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2023, at 3:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>
> On Feb 2, 2023, at 3:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-01 13:24, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
>>>> wrote:
&
> On Feb 2, 2023, at 3:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>> G
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-01 13:24, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-01-31 09:11, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>> Update documentation to clarify
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-31 09:11, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Update documentation to clarify a GCC extension on structure with
>> flexible array member being nested in another structure.
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
Siddhesh,
Thanks. I will update the testing case per your change.
Qing
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:48 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-31 09:11, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
>> is embedded into ano
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
>> is embedded into another struct (possibly recursively).
>> __builtin_object_size should
Update documentation to clarify a GCC extension on structure with
flexible array member being nested in another structure.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/extend.texi: Document GCC extension on a structure containing
a flexible array member to be a member of another structure.
---
This is the patch for PR101832, to fix builtin_object_size to
correctly handle component_ref to a structure/union field that
includes a flexible array member.
also includes a documentation update for the GCC extension on embedding
a structure/union with flexible array member into another
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
is embedded into another struct (possibly recursively).
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size per
-fstrict-flex-arrays.
PR tree-optimization/101832
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR
> On Jan 26, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-26 11:20, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi, Siddhesh,
>> Thanks a lot for this patch, after -fstrict-flex-array functionality has
>> been added into GCC,
>> I think that making the tree-object
Hi, Siddhesh,
Thanks a lot for this patch, after -fstrict-flex-array functionality has been
added into GCC,
I think that making the tree-object-size to have consistent behavior with flex
arrays is a
valuable and natural work that need to be added.
I also like the comments you added into
Thanks for the comment.
I just committed the following:
>From fc681f5412c421ff9609aea448310106d2570fd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qing Zhao
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:52:15 +
Subject: [PATCH] gcc13/changes: update id 'flexible array' to
'flexible-arrays' since ids must not cont
We should not directly check flag_strict_flex_arrays in the middle end.
Instead, check DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY(array_field_decl) which is set by
C/C++ FEs according to -fstrict-flex-arrays and the corresponding attribute
attached to the array_field.
As a result, We will lose the LEVEL information of
this is the patch to replace all references to flag_strict_flex_arrays
with DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY in middle-end per the discussion.
I have bootstrapped and regression tested on X86, no issues.
Okay for commit?
thanks.
Qing
> On Jan 10, 2023, at 3:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 2:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>
> On Jan 9, 2023, at 2:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2022, at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
Alexander,
(Sorry for the late reply due to holiday vacation).
> On Dec 24, 2022, at 3:10 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> BTW, Why sched1 is not enabled on x86 by default?
>
> Register allocation is tricky on x86 due
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Then, sched2 still can move insn across calls?
>> So does sched2 have the same issue of incorrectly moving the insn across a
>> call which ha
Then, sched2 still can move insn across calls?
So does sched2 have the same issue of incorrectly moving the insn across a
call which has unknown control flow?
Qing
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>
>>> (scheduling
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 2:33 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>> I think scheduling across calls in the pre-RA scheduler is simply an
>>> oversight,
>>> we do not look at dataflow information and w
> On Dec 22, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> The first instruction scheduler pass reorders instructions in the TRY
>> block in a way `b=true' gets executed before the call to the function
>> `f'. This
> On Dec 22, 2022, at 2:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your comments.
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2022, at 2:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
Hi, Richard,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
> On Dec 21, 2022, at 2:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the patch for mentioning -fstrict-flex-arrays and -Warray-bounds=2
>> changes in gcc-13/cha
001
From: Qing Zhao
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 16:13:04 +
Subject: [PATCH] gcc-13/changes: Mention -fstrict-flex-arrays and its impact.
---
htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
in
FYI.
Committed this last patch as:
https://jira.oci.oraclecorp.com/browse/OLDIS-21095
I will come up with the update to gcc-13/changes.html for -fstrict-flex-arrays
very soon.
Thanks.
Qing
> On Dec 16, 2022, at 9:49 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On
> On Dec 16, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 2:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 2:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>> I guess that we now agreed on the following:
>>
>> “ the information that we ran into a trailing array but didn't consider
&
pinion.
thanks.
Qing
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 4:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Do you have any decision on this one?
>> Do we need this warning option For GCC?
>
> Looking at the testcases it s
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 9:08 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 14, 2022, at 4:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> Do you have any
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 4:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Do you have any decision on this one?
>> Do we need this warning option For GCC?
>
> Looking at the testcases it seems t
Richard,
Do you have any decision on this one?
Do we need this warning option For GCC?
thanks.
Qing
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 11:18 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
> Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
> the LEVEL of the 'st
'-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
the LEVEL of the 'strict_flex_array (LEVEL)' attribute attached to
the trailing array field of a structure if it's available,
otherwise according to the LEVEL of the option
Sorry, Please ignore this email.
Qing
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
> Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
> the LEVEL of the 'strict_flex_array (LEVEL)' attribute attached to
> the tr
'-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
the LEVEL of the 'strict_flex_array (LEVEL)' attribute attached to
the trailing array field of a structure if it's available,
otherwise according to the LEVEL of the option
A. add the following to clarify the relationship between -Warray-bounds
and the LEVEL of -fstrict-flex-array:
By default, the trailing array of a structure will be treated as a
flexible array member by '-Warray-bounds' or '-Warray-bounds=N' if
it is declared as either
Hi, this is the 3rd version of the patch.
Per Richard's request, I split the patch into two seperate patches:
1. Update -Warray-bounds with -fstrict-flex-arrays.
2. Add a new warning option -Wstrict-flex-arrays.
I have bootstrapped and regression tested on both X86 and aarch64
without any
> On Dec 5, 2022, at 10:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2022, at 2:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> On Dec 2, 2022, at 2:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-12-01 11:42, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:25:56PM +,
> On Dec 2, 2022, at 2:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
>> On 2022-12-01 11:42, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:25:56PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
>>>>
esh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2022-12-01 11:42, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:25:56PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
>>> Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
>>> the LEVEL o
ote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:04:02PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:25:56PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
>>&g
> On Dec 1, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:25:56PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> '-Wstrict-flex-arrays'
>> Warn about inproper usages of flexible array members according to
>> the LEVEL of the 'strict_flex_array
401 - 500 of 1190 matches
Mail list logo
