On 04 Mar 2007 16:22:33 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yes, we do plan to participate. That link goes to the SoC page for
gcc. Right now it's still the 2006 one, but I would assume it will
probably the right one once the 2007 setup gets going.
OK - I have updated
http://www.gnu.org/software
"James Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the GCC project participating in the 2007 Google Summer of Code
> project? If so, is the link near the bottom of the page
> http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas.html correct? Do you
> have a list of project ideas?
Yes, we do plan to
> Is the GCC project participating in the 2007 Google Summer of Code
> project? If so, is the link near the bottom of the page
> http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas.html correct? Do you
> have a list of project ideas?
Yes, the GCC project is participating. Please see:
http://gcc
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 01:43, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> > 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> > to the mangler without an va_end().
> > This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> > fr
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> to the mangler without an va_end().
> This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> from/then/to/avoid. In other words, the corresponding aut
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:12, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
> the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
> for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
> portability errors tha
It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
portability errors that could be caught - but it's never been important
enough t
OK, I have put a preview of the tree-check pass (performing lightweight
user-defined checks) on:
http://mygcc.free.fr.
Any comments are welcome.
Nic.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:23, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
>
> > The checks are specified using a new option --
On 03/29/06 16:05, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> Nevertheless, this light approach could be combined with the API-based
> approach, by complementing the (declarative) code patterns with
> (executable) predicates using the API, and loaded as dynamic libraries.
>
Yes, absolutely. Once you have a pluggab
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:23, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Oh, excellent. Coincidentally, we have been thinking about developing
> some kind of plugin/extension framework to allow these classes of
> analyses. One of the goals is to provide an extensibility mechanism
> that will not require rebuilding GC
On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> The checks are specified using a new option --tree-check, and are
> powerful enough to express user-defined memory leaks, null pointer
> dereferences, unreleased locks, etc., but also more basic checks such
> as using an unsafe construct.
>
Oh, excellent.
> Also, in which branch should I port these modifications (4.2,
> 4.1,...) to submit a patch? I originally developed the whole stuff
> on a tree-ssa branch dating January 2004, and then ported it to
> 4.0.1. Porting this to any recent branch should be easy, but which
> one to choose?
If you want
12 matches
Mail list logo
