On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-03-24 17:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the different cases, >>> in particular a TU compiled with -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link without >>> that, or TU compiled without -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link with it. >>> It could be handled as LTO incompatible option, where lto1 would error out >>> if you try to mix -fcheck-pointer-bounds with -fno-check-pointer-bounds >>> code, or e.g. similar to var-tracking, you could consider adjusting the IL >>> upon LTO reading if if some TU has been built with -fcheck-pointer-bounds >>> and the LTO link is -fno-check-pointer-bounds. Dunno what will happen >>> with -fno-check-pointer-bounds TUs LTO linked with -fcheck-pointer-bounds. >>> Or another possibility is to or in -fcheck-pointer-bounds from all TUs. >>> >>>> Maybe replace attribute usage with a new flag in tree_decl_with_vis >>>> structure? >>> >>> Depends, might be better to stick it into cgraph_node instead, depends on >>> whether you are querying it already early in the FEs or just during GIMPLE >>> when the cgraph node should be created too. >> >> I also wonder why it is necessary to execute pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes >> when mpx is not active. >> >> That is, can we guard that properly in >> >> void >> pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes () >> { >> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_build_ssa_passes_1->sub); >> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub); >> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_local_optimization_passes_1->sub); >> } > > I'm worried about new functions generated in LTO. But with re-created > flag_check_pointer_bounds it should be safe to guard it. > >> >> (why's that so oddly wrapped?) >> >> class pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes >> >> also has no gate that guards with flag_mpx or so. >> >> That would save a IL walk over all functions (fixup_cfg) and a cgraph >> edge rebuild. > > Right. Will fix it.
I am already testing Index: gcc/passes.c =================================================================== --- gcc/passes.c (revision 221633) +++ gcc/passes.c (working copy) @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes () { execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_build_ssa_passes_1->sub); - execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub); + if (flag_check_pointer_bounds) + execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub); execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_local_optimization_passes_1->sub); } @@ -424,7 +425,8 @@ public: virtual bool gate (function *) { /* Don't bother doing anything if the program has errors. */ - return (!seen_error () && !in_lto_p); + return (flag_check_pointer_bounds + && !seen_error () && !in_lto_p); } }; // class pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes Richard. > Thanks, > Ilya > >> >> Richard. >> >>> Jakub