On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 07:23:01PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > What's the advantage of another argument and then merging it with
> > object_size_type over just passing object_size_type which will have
> > all the bits in?
>
> I kept the size bits as an internal detail, I can define them
On 11/23/21 18:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:31AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Recognize the __builtin_dynamic_object_size builtin and add paths in the
object size path to deal with it, but treat it like
__builtin_object_size for now. Also add tests to provide the
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:31AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Recognize the __builtin_dynamic_object_size builtin and add paths in the
> object size path to deal with it, but treat it like
> __builtin_object_size for now. Also add tests to provide the same
> testing coverage for the new
Recognize the __builtin_dynamic_object_size builtin and add paths in the
object size path to deal with it, but treat it like
__builtin_object_size for now. Also add tests to provide the same
testing coverage for the new builtin name.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* builtins.def
