https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100665
Matthew Malcomson <matmal01 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Malcomson <matmal01 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #1)
> > Given that, the question of whether the function pointer (i.e. the pointer
> > to
> > the trampoline inside that object) should be tagged when passed elsewhere
> > then
> > has a few benefits:
> > 1) In this case there is no check performed, but there may be checks
> > performed
> > if e.g. this function pointer gets cast to an integer pointer and some
> > code
> > elsewhere attempts to read that integer.
> I'm not sure there're cases where code pointers are casted to integer
> pointers. But consider the above comment, I agree that tag is needed for the
> object.
Fair ;-).
My reasoning was along the lines of "it's an escaped pointer, and I don't know
what other code will do with it" than actually expecting that to happen.
