Yes, after today’s discussion, I think we agreed on
1. Passing the size field by reference to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as jakub suggested.
2. Then the compiler should be able to always use the latest value of size
field for the reference to FAM.
As a result, no need to add code for pointer re-obtainin
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:13 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:00 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 04:20:57PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
>> following:
>>
>> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
>>
>> INTERNAL_FN (AC
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 04:20:57PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
> following:
>
> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
>
> INTERNAL_FN (ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, NULL)
>
> which returns
So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as
following:
.ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE)
INTERNAL_FN (ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, NULL)
which returns the “REF_TO_OBJ" same as the 1st argument;
1st argument “REF_TO_OBJ": Ref
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 02:32:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Why? It doesn't really matter. The options are
>>> A. p is at &s.b[2] associated with &s.a and int type (or size of int
>>> or whatever); .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE can't be pure,
>>
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 02:32:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Why? It doesn't really matter. The options are
> > A. p is at &s.b[2] associated with &s.a and int type (or size of int
> > or whatever); .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE can't be pure,
>
> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE will only load the size from its addre
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 2:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
>>>
Am Freitag, dem 03.11.2023 um 07:22 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for raising
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:07:36AM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the major question w
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 17:28 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
> >
> > For the following example: (Jakub mentioned t
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
>
> If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
>
> For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
>
> 1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:00 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> What I meant is to emit
>>> tmp_4 = .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (&s.b[0], &s.a, (typeof (&s.a)) 0);
>>> p_5 = &tmp_4[2];
>>> i.e. don't associate the pointer with a value of the siz
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one of
the arguments not the size v
Thanks a lot for raising these issues.
If I understand correctly, the major question we need to answer is:
For the following example: (Jakub mentioned this in an early message)
1 struct S { int a; char b __attribute__((counted_by (a))) []; };
2 struct S s;
3 s.a = 5;
4 char *p = &s.b[
On 2023-11-02 10:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
This shouldn't be necessary. The object-size pass
can track pointer arithmeti if it comes after
inserting the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.
https://godbolt.org/z/fvc3aoPfd
The problem is dependency tracking through the pointer arithmetic, which
Jakub suggested t
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:50 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 13:50 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 3
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:50 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>>
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counte
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > What I meant is to emit
> > tmp_4 = .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (&s.b[0], &s.a, (typeof (&s.a)) 0);
> > p_5 = &tmp_4[2];
> > i.e. don't associate the pointer with a value of the size, but with
> > an address where to find the size (plus how
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one
> > > of
> > > the arguments not the size value, but its address. Then at __bdos time
> > > we w
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Or, if we want to pay further price, .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE could take as one of
> > the arguments not the size value, but its address. Then at __bdos time
> > we would dereference that pointer to get the size.
> > So,
> > struct S { i
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > You probably want to specify that when a pointer to the array is taken the
> > pointer has to be to the first array element (or do we want to mangle the
> > 'size' accordingl
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> You probably want to specify that when a pointer to the array is taken the
> pointer has to be to the first array element (or do we want to mangle the
> 'size' accordingly for the instrumentation?). You also want to specify that
> t
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
> >>
> >> For the following structure including a FAM with a c
> On Nov 1, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 01.11.2023 um 14:47 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "c
Am Mittwoch, dem 01.11.2023 um 14:47 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
> > On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> > > 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
> > >
> > > For the following structure includin
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 6:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
>>
>> For the following structure including a FAM with a counted_by attribute:
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>> size_t size;
>>
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> 2.3 A new semantic requirement in the user documentation of "counted_by"
>
> For the following structure including a FAM with a counted_by attribute:
>
> struct A
> {
>size_t size;
>char buf[] __attribute__((counted_by(size)));
> };
>
> for
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-31 12:26, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I wrote a summary based on our extensive discussion, hopefully this can be
>> served as an informal proposal.
>> Please take a look at it and let me know any comment or suggestion.
>> T
On 2023-10-31 12:26, Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a summary based on our extensive discussion, hopefully this can be
served as an informal proposal.
Please take a look at it and let me know any comment or suggestion.
There are some (???) in the section 3.2 and 3.6, those are my questions seek
33 matches
Mail list logo
