On 12/17/2017 01:01 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
* c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c: New test.
681/* The following doesn't overlap but it should trigger
-Wstrinop-ovewrflow
682 for writing past the end. */
683T ("012", a + sizeof a, a);
For nvptx, the warning actually shows
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 03:27 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 12/08/2017 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is revision 8 of the patch with the changes suggested
>>> and/or requested below.
>>
>>
>> [ Big snip. ]
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gcc-78918.diff
>
On 12/08/2017 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is revision 8 of the patch with the changes suggested
> and/or requested below.
[ Big snip. ]
>
>
> gcc-78918.diff
>
>
> PR tree-optimization/78918 - missing -Wrestrict on memcpy copying over self
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>
> P
On 12/07/2017 03:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
for overlapping accesses.
On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
> In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
> as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
> for overlapping accesses.
>
> While beefing up the tests I f
On 12/07/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 02:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
>>> In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
>>> as well as Richard's to allowin
On 12/07/2017 02:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
for overlapping accesses.
On 11/29/2017 04:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I've finished reimplementing the patch as a standalone pass.
> In the attached revision I also addressed your comments below
> as well as Richard's to allowing the strlen optimizations even
> for overlapping accesses.
>
> While beefing up the tests I f
On 11/27/2017 05:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> +
> + if (const strinfo *chksi = olddsi ? olddsi : dsi)
> +if (si
> + && !check_bounds_or_overlap (stmt, chksi->ptr, si->ptr, NULL_TREE,
> len))
> + /* Avoid transforming strcpy when out-of-bounds offsets or
> +overlapping
On 11/25/2017 05:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 04:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/16/2017 02:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/23/2017 08:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is a reworked solution to enhance -Wrestrict while
> avoiding changing tree-vrp.c or any other VRP
On 11/27/2017 05:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping.
I've fixed the outstanding false positive exposed by the Linux
kernel. The kernel builds with four instances of the warning,
all of them valid (perfect overlap in memcpy).
I also built G
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping.
>
> I've fixed the outstanding false positive exposed by the Linux
> kernel. The kernel builds with four instances of the warning,
> all of them valid (perfect overlap in memcpy).
>
> I also built Glibc. It shows one instance of the w
On 11/22/2017 04:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/16/2017 02:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping.
I've fixed the outstanding false positive exposed by the Linux
kernel. The kernel builds with four instances of the warning,
all of them valid (perfect overlap in memcpy).
I also built Glibc. It shows o
On 11/16/2017 02:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping.
>
> I've fixed the outstanding false positive exposed by the Linux
> kernel. The kernel builds with four instances of the warning,
> all of them valid (perfect overlap in memcpy).
>
> I also built Glibc. It shows one instance of the warning, a
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01642.html
On 10/23/2017 08:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a reworked solution to enhance -Wrestrict while
avoiding changing tree-vrp.c or any other VRP machinery. Richard,
in considering you suggestions I realized that the ao_ref s
On 08/28/2017 06:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Correct. I wound my way through this mess a while back. Essentially
>> Red Hat had a customer with code that had overlapped memcpy arguments.
>> We had them use the memstomp interposition library to start tracking
>> these problems down.
>>
>> One of
On 08/28/2017 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Warning for memcpy (p, p, ...) is going to fire false positives all
>> around
>> given the C++ FE emits those in some cases and optimization can
>> expose that we are dealing with self-assignments. And *p = *p is
>> valid.
>
> I changed it to only
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/22/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Well, simp
On 08/24/2017 04:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/22/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias qu
On 08/22/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
but maybe one that's good enough for
On 08/22/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>
> Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
> but maybe
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false posi
On 08/09/2017 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false positives
but surely doesn't eliminate them).
I'm very interested in reducing
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
>> but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false positives
>> but surely doesn't eliminate them).
>
> I'm very interested in reducing the rate of false positives i
On 08/03/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
> but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false positives
> but surely doesn't eliminate them).
OK. So it's more about building a proper must-alias query and less
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/01/2017 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue
On 08/03/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/01/2017 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Richard,
in discussing this work Jeff ment
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/01/2017 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Richard,
in discussing this work Jeff mentioned that your comments o
On 08/01/2017 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> in discussing this work Jeff mentioned that your comments on
>>> the tree-ssa-alias.c parts would be helpful. When
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> in discussing this work Jeff mentioned that your comments on
>> the tree-ssa-alias.c parts would be helpful. When you have
>> a chance could you please give it a once ov
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Richard,
>
> in discussing this work Jeff mentioned that your comments on
> the tree-ssa-alias.c parts would be helpful. When you have
> a chance could you please give it a once over and let me know
> if you have any suggestions or concerns?
Richard,
in discussing this work Jeff mentioned that your comments on
the tree-ssa-alias.c parts would be helpful. When you have
a chance could you please give it a once over and let me know
if you have any suggestions or concerns? There are no visible
changes to existing clients of the pass, j
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01264.html
This change is related to
[PATCH] enhance -Wrestrict for sprintf %s arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01176.html
On 07/20/2017 02:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
With more testing (building GDB, Glibc, Busyb
Being implemented in the front end, the -Wrestrict warning
detects only trivial instances of violations. The attached
patch extends the implementation to the middle-end where
data flow and alias analysis can be combined to detect even
complex cases of overlap. This work is independent of but
fol
34 matches
Mail list logo
