On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 01:44:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Thanks for the testing case.
> Yes, I noticed this issue too, and already fixed it in my private branch.
>
> With the latest patch, the compilation has no issue:
> [opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 108896]$ sh t
>
Hi, Kees,
Thanks for the testing case.
Yes, I noticed this issue too, and already fixed it in my private branch.
With the latest patch, the compilation has no issue:
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 108896]$ sh t
/home/opc/Install/latest-d/bin/gcc -O2 -c -o /dev/null bug.c
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:31:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:44:28PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
> > review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
>
> I've been using
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:44:28PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
> review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
I've been using Coccinelle to find and annotate[1] structures (193 so
far...), and I've
Hi,
After some more studying and consideration, the following is my thoughts:
For a structure with FMA annotated with counted_by attribute: (the following
small example)
struct annotated {
size_t foo;
char b;
char array[] __attribute__((counted_by (foo)));
};
> On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:30:06PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> The definition of __bos/__bdos allows us the freedom to *estimate* rather
>> than be precise, so I'd go for sizeof(x) + N * sizeof(*x.a) since it's bound
>> to give
On 2023-08-10 12:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:30:06PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
The definition of __bos/__bdos allows us the freedom to *estimate* rather
than be precise, so I'd go for sizeof(x) + N * sizeof(*x.a) since it's bound
to give the more conservative
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:30:06PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> The definition of __bos/__bdos allows us the freedom to *estimate* rather
> than be precise, so I'd go for sizeof(x) + N * sizeof(*x.a) since it's bound
> to give the more conservative answer of the two.
To be precise, we have
On 2023-08-10 11:18, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 10:58 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar:
On 2023-08-10 10:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 16:42 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am
Hi, Martin,
> On Aug 10, 2023, at 11:18 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 10:58 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar:
>> On 2023-08-10 10:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 16:42 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 10:58 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar:
> On 2023-08-10 10:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 16:42 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um
On 2023-08-10 10:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 16:42 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 13:59 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
On Aug 10, 2023, at 2:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 16:42 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 13:59 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 10, 2023, at 2:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Am Mittwoch,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 13:59 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 2023, at 2:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, dem 09.08.2023 um 20:10 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 9,
Am Donnerstag, dem 10.08.2023 um 13:59 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Aug 10, 2023, at 2:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, dem 09.08.2023 um 20:10 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 9, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure for the reason
Hey,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > offset(struct foo_flex, t[0]) + N * sizeof(foo->t);
> >
> > With GCC, offset(struct foo_flex,t[0]) == 6, which is also correct.
>
> This formula might be considered incorrect / dangerous because
> it might allocate less storage than
> On Aug 10, 2023, at 2:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 09.08.2023 um 20:10 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> ...
>>
>> By definition, the sizeof() of a struct with FAM might not be the same as
>> the non-FAM one.
>>
Hello,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > So, should the equivalent FAM struct also have this sizeof()? If no:
> > there should be a good argument why it shouldn't be similar to the non-FAM
> > one.
>
> The sizeof() of a structure with FAM is defined as: (after I searched online,
> I
Am Mittwoch, dem 09.08.2023 um 20:10 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Aug 9, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
...
>
> By definition, the sizeof() of a struct with FAM might not be the same as the
> non-FAM one.
> i.e, for the following two structures, one with FAM, the other with
> On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
>
> I am sure this has been discussed before, but seeing that you
> test for a specific formula, let me point out the following:
>
> There at least three different size expression which could
> make sense. Consider
>
> short foo { int
> On Aug 9, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Although this is an old FAM related issue that does not relate to my current
>> patch
>> (and might need to be resolved in a separate patch). I think that it’s
>> necessary to have
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:33:13PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> What’s the testing case for the one that failed?
> If it’s
>
> __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p->array, 0/2) without the allocation
> information in the routine,
> then with the current algorithm, gcc cannot deduce the size for the
Hello,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Although this is an old FAM related issue that does not relate to my current
> patch
> (and might need to be resolved in a separate patch). I think that it’s
> necessary to have
> more discussion on this old issue and resolve it.
>
> The first
Hi, Martin,
Thanks for raising this issue.
Although this is an old FAM related issue that does not relate to my current
patch
(and might need to be resolved in a separate patch). I think that it’s
necessary to have
more discussion on this old issue and resolve it.
The first thing that I’d
On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 04:54:46PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> I am sure this has been discussed before, but seeing that you
> test for a specific formula, let me point out the following:
>
> There at least three different size expression which could
> make sense. Consider
>
> short foo
Hello,
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote:
> There at least three different size expression which could
> make sense. Consider
>
> short foo { int a; short b; char t[]; };
>
> Most people seem to use
>
> sizeof(struct foo) + N * sizeof(foo->t);
>
> which for N == 3
I am sure this has been discussed before, but seeing that you
test for a specific formula, let me point out the following:
There at least three different size expression which could
make sense. Consider
short foo { int a; short b; char t[]; };
Most people seem to use
sizeof(struct foo) + N
> On Aug 7, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:44:28PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
>> review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
>> are:
>
> Thanks for the update!
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:44:28PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
> review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
> are:
Thanks for the update!
>
> 1. change the name "element_count" to "counted_by";
> 2.
Hi,
This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
are:
1. change the name "element_count" to "counted_by";
2. change the parameter for the attribute from a STRING to an
Identifier;
3. Add logic and
30 matches
Mail list logo
