Yes, after today’s discussion, I think we agreed on
1. Passing the size field by reference to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as jakub suggested.
2. Then the compiler should be able to always use the latest value of size
field for the reference to FAM.
As a result, no need to add code for pointer
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:13 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:00 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 04:20:57PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
>> following:
>>
>> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
>>
>> INTERNAL_FN
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 04:20:57PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
> following:
>
> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
>
> INTERNAL_FN (ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, NULL)
>
> which
So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
following:
.ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
INTERNAL_FN (ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, NULL)
which returns the “REF_TO_OBJ" same as the 1st argument;
1st argument “REF_TO_OBJ":
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 02:32:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Why? It doesn't really matter. The options are
>>> A. p is at [2] associated with and int type (or size of int
>>> or whatever); .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE can't be pure,
>>
>>
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 02:32:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Why? It doesn't really matter. The options are
> > A. p is at [2] associated with and int type (or size of int
> > or whatever); .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE can't be pure,
>
> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE will only load the size from its address, no
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 2:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
Am Freitag, dem 03.11.2023 um 07:22 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for raising
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the major question
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
> >
> > For the following example: (Jakub mentioned
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
>
> If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
>
> For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
>
> 1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:00 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> What I meant is to emit
>>> tmp_4 = .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE ([0], , (typeof ()) 0);
>>> p_5 = _4[2];
>>> i.e. don't associate the pointer with a value of the size, but with
>>>
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one of
the arguments not the size
Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by (a))) []; };
2 struct S s;
3 s.a = 5;
4 char *p = [2];
On 2023-11-02 10:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
This shouldn't be necessary. The object-size pass
can track pointer arithmeti if it comes after
inserting the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.
https://godbolt.org/z/fvc3aoPfd
The problem is dependency tracking through the pointer arithmetic, which
Jakub suggested
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:50 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 13:50 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue,
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:50 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>>
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > What I meant is to emit
> > tmp_4 = .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE ([0], , (typeof ()) 0);
> > p_5 = _4[2];
> > i.e. don't associate the pointer with a value of the size, but with
> > an address where to find the size (plus how large it is),
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one
> > > of
> > > the arguments not the size value, but its address. Then at __bdos time
> > > we
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one of
> > the arguments not the size value, but its address. Then at __bdos time
> > we would dereference that pointer to get the size.
> > So,
> > struct S {
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > You probably want to specify that when a pointer to the array is taken the
> > pointer has to be to the first array element (or do we want to mangle the
> > 'size'
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> You probably want to specify that when a pointer to the array is taken the
> pointer has to be to the first array element (or do we want to mangle the
> 'size' accordingly for the instrumentation?). You also want to specify that
>
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
> >>
> >> For the following structure including a FAM with a
> On Nov 1, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 01.11.2023 um 14:47 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of
Am Mittwoch, dem 01.11.2023 um 14:47 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> > > 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
> > >
> > > For the following structure
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
>>
>> For the following structure including a FAM with a counted_by attribute:
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>> size_t size;
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
>
> For the following structure including a FAM with a counted_by attribute:
>
> struct A
> {
>size_t size;
>char buf[] __attribute__((counted_by(size)));
> };
>
> for
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-31 12:26, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I wrote a summary based on our extensive discussion, hopefully this can be
>> served as an informal proposal.
>> Please take a look at it and let me know any comment or suggestion.
>>
On 2023-10-31 12:26, Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a summary based on our extensive discussion, hopefully this can be
served as an informal proposal.
Please take a look at it and let me know any comment or suggestion.
There are some (???) in the section 3.2 and 3.6, those are my questions
33 matches
Mail list logo
