> On Jul 10, 2025, at 13:27, Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2025, at 12:56, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 04:03:30PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>> 
>>> * c-ubsan.cc (get_bound_from_access_with_size): Adjust the position
>>> of the arguments per the new design.
>>> 
>>> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
>>> 
>>> * c-typeck.cc (build_counted_by_ref): Update comments.
>>> (build_access_with_size_for_counted_by): Adjust the arguments per
>>> the new design.
>>> 
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>> 
>>> * internal-fn.cc (expand_DEFERRED_INIT): Update comments.
>>> * internal-fn.def (DEFERRED_INIT): Update comments.
>>> * tree-object-size.cc (addr_object_size): Update comments.
>>> (access_with_size_object_size): Adjust the arguments per the new
>>> design.
>> 
>> Similar comment about ChangeLog entries as on the previous patch.
> 
> Sure, will check the changeling and update accordingly. 
> 
>> 
>> I see only code passing 0 as the third argument (with the right type),
>> so don't see why it is documented to be 0/1/2/3.  Or is that something
>> done in the patch that got reverted?
> 
> ACCESS_MODE is only for a future work to reimplement the attribute
> access with the internal function .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE. 
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-access-function-attribute
> 
> For the current “counted_by”, this flag is not used at all.  Therefore only 0 
> is passed. 

One more note here, previously, ACCESS_MODE has 5 values:
     -1: Unknown access semantics
      0: none
      1: read_only
      2: write_only
      3: read_write

For counted_by, I passed “-1” to the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.

With the new design, ACCESS_MODE has only 4 values (I think that the -1 is not 
necessary, 0 should be enough)

        0: none
        1: read_only
        2: write_only
        3: read_write

For counted_by, I passed “0” to the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.

Later, when we reimplement the “access” attribute by using .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, 
the ACCESS_MODE will be used
At that time. 

What do you think?

thanks.

Qing
> 
> Hope this is clear. 
>> 
>> Jakub


Reply via email to