Hi. Wondering why you think a mailing-list is a review/tests review notepad. Not under-rating your work, it's very fine, but why not a private chat ? Or only when tested a simple comment on a fork ?
Btw, I'd be glad to test it on x86 32 bits linux 5.0. Regards, ian Le 02/12/2019 à 22:46, Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel a écrit : > Little updated patch. Still needs more work. > > Regards, > > Herman > > On 2019-12-02 18:24, Herman ten Brugge wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I did some debugging with bouds-checking and came up with attached >> patch. >> I seriously doubt any one did use bounds checking in a large project >> before. >> >> Currently I can use this now in a large multi threaded project. It >> still needs some more testing so do not apply the patch yet. >> >> I disabled some errors. For example if a bounded pointer is not found >> I give no error. I also relaxed printing free errors. >> There were some off by 1 errors in lib/bcheck.c and I needed to make >> the code thread safe. >> I used the patch to not link in libtcc1.a in shared objects when >> bounds checking so I have only one memory pool. >> This has to be documented because you cannot use this with dlopen for >> example. >> I also added the pthread library when bounds checking so it is now >> multi threaded. >> I found another problem with nocode_wanted when using sizeof(). >> Also the push/pop trick needed to push some more registers when more >> parameters are passed in registers. >> >> I probably forget to mention a lot a other changes. See the patch. >> >> I only tested this on linux x86_64. There are for sure problems on >> other targets. >> >> Regards, >> >> Herman >> >> >> On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote: >>> Hello again, >>> >>> but to maybe be a bit more constructive: >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote: >>> >>>>> I fixed this with some push/pop trickery. >>> I see, yeah, expanding calls during calls is broken as gfunc_call in >>> the >>> generators doesn't generally leave a trace in vtop[] which registers >>> are >>> currently holding values. I think you only need so push/pop si/di, as >>> cx/dx aren't used intentionally during reg-param setup. >>> >>> (I think i386-gen.c has a simila bug with fastcall functions). >>> >>>>> This probably could be >>>>> improved. I have now added a minimum patch so bounds checking works a >>>>> little bit. We need still to fix the shared lib reloc problems and >>>>> the >>>>> malloc/free hooks. >>>> Do we? Can we perhaps also simply declare bounds checking to work >>>> only >>>> with the main executable? Or remove that whole feature altogether? >>> And perhaps another compromise: only conditionally enable tracking of >>> locals: Invent a new cmdline option (say, '-bb'), which sets >>> do_bounds_checking to 2. And only if it's > 1 you would also track >>> locals, whereas with == 1 you would only track arrays and structs. >>> >>> Your decision, I think you can push this patch either with that >>> change, or >>> without (but try to remove cx/dx from the push/pop). It doesn't >>> make tccs >>> source code larger or uglier in any meaningful way, but does fix >>> practical >>> bugs. >>> >>> >>> Ciao, >>> Michael. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel -- -- i...@sibian.fr -- Développeur compulsif
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
