| Message ID | 20131119121342.GR21297@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11/19/13 05:13, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > On 19 Nov 13:00, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 11/08/13 02:02, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here is an updated patch version with no langhook. >>>> >>>> Regarding TLS objects issue - I do not think compiler should compensate >>>> the absence of instrumentation in libraries. Compiler should be responsible >>>> for initialization of Bounds Tables for .tdata section. Correct data copy >>>> is a responsibility of library. User should use either instrumented library >>>> or wrapper calls if he needs this functionality. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ilya >>>> -- >>>> gcc/ >>>> >>>> 2013-11-06 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkovich@intel.com> >>>> >>>> * c/c-parser.c: Include tree-chkp.h. >>>> (c_parser_declaration_or_fndef): Register statically >>>> initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker. >>>> * cp/decl.c: Include tree-chkp.h. >>>> (cp_finish_decl): Register statically >>>> initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker. >>>> * gimplify.c: Include tree-chkp.h. >>>> (gimplify_init_constructor): Register statically >>>> initialized decls in Pointer Bounds Checker. >>> >>> Is parsing really the right time to register these things with the checking >>> framework? Doesn't all this stuff flow through the gimplifier? If so >>> wouldn't that be a better place? >>> >>> If it can be done in the gimplifier, which seems good from the standpoint of >>> simplifying the long term maintenance of the checking code. >>> >>> If there's a good reason to have this front-end, please explain it. >> >> I'd say not in the gimplifier either but in varpool (symbol table) code >> where the symbols are ultimatively registered with? > > Something like that? > > --- a/gcc/varpool.c > +++ b/gcc/varpool.c > @@ -151,6 +151,10 @@ varpool_node_for_decl (tree decl) > node = varpool_create_empty_node (); > node->decl = decl; > symtab_register_node (node); > + > + if (DECL_NIITIAL (decl)) > + chkp_register_var_initializer (decl); > + > return node; > } Yea, I think that's what Richi is suggesting. jeff
--- a/gcc/varpool.c +++ b/gcc/varpool.c @@ -151,6 +151,10 @@ varpool_node_for_decl (tree decl) node = varpool_create_empty_node (); node->decl = decl; symtab_register_node (node); + + if (DECL_NIITIAL (decl)) + chkp_register_var_initializer (decl); + return node; }