2013/10/24 Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com>: > On 10/23/2013 02:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> Out of curiosity, did you consider and/or discuss with Richard whether or not >> to make these target-dependent or target-independent builtins? I realize >> it's >> a bit problematic with Richard being involved during the NDA portion and >> someone else during the review/integration portion, but that's unfortunately >> where we are. > > I suggested that they be target independent. > > I suggested that there was nothing in MPX that couldn't be > done generically, if slower, on non-MPX hardware. > > E.g. there's no reason why bounds couldn't be packed into a > double-word integer, and the checking builtins completely > outlined into a runtime library. > > I suggested that the optimization done on the bound type > would help a generic mudflap replacement.
Right. The design implies generic support of Pointers Checker without MPX support on hardware. This series does not include generic support. We are currently examining priority of this task. Suppose generic support of Pointers Checker may replace Mudflap. Do not know yet if Pointers Checker may borrow some stuff from Mudflap. Ilya > > > r~
