verity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: isanbard at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31513
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #14 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #9)
> > > Considering that the GNU extensions is rarely used, one could consider
> > > redefining the meaning of
> > >
> > > int n = 1;
> > > struct {
> > > int n;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #16 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #15)
> Am Freitag, dem 03.03.2023 um 20:27 + schrieb isanbard at gmail dot com:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #18 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #17)
> Am Freitag, dem 03.03.2023 um 23:18 + schrieb isanbard at gmail dot com:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
Bill Wendling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||isanbard at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #33 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #31)
> (In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #25)
> > The source code need to be:
> >
> > If (__builtin_get_counted_by (P->FAM))
> > __builtin_get_counted_by (P->FAM) =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #37 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #36)
> (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #33)
> > __builtin_get_attr_arg (ptr, attr_name)
> >
> > This could have an optional argument to specify which argum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #39 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #38)
> (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #37)
> > That does make me wonder at the usefulness of this feature. The user will
> > need to set the count whether or not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #43 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #40)
> Note, our original purpose of adding this new builtin is explicitly
> described in description section as:
>
> with the new builtin, "structs can gain the counted_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #46 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #45)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> >
> > But for the kernel you'll need to have fallback code which will set the
> > actual counter manually for compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #57 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #47)
> Yes, the counter must be manually set until Linux minimum compiler versions
> are raised to include counted_by support, but this is about making the
> transition t
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: isanbard at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
There appears to be an issue with __builtin_dynamic_object_size() when using a
local variable. The following code should output 40 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113514
--- Comment #3 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The answer is not really and it is complex.
>
Okay. It just seems counter-intuitive.
> So I will note that clang/LLVM returns 48 for `f.bar[argc], 1` and 0 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
Bill Wendling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||isanbard at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #18 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #12)
> (In reply to Bill Wendling from comment #10)
> > The Clang implementation will probably have a prototype of something like:
> >
> > void __builtin_set_counted_by(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #19 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #13)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #11)
> > After the discussion with Kees on the major usage of this new builtin, I
> > think that the above Category A mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #21 from Bill Wendling ---
Another question: Should we allow side-effects in the builtin? I think it would
cause too much pain if we did. If we don't allow it, should it emit a warning
or silently become a no-op?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016
--- Comment #23 from Bill Wendling ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #22)
> the following is the user documentation I came up based on all the
> discussion so far, let me know any comment and suggestion. (refer to GCC's
> __builtin_clear_pad
18 matches
Mail list logo
