> On Aug 1, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
>> does not say anything about the object it points to,
>> So, __builtin_o
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 2:25 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 01.08.2023 um 15:45 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
>>&
in_dynamic_object_size(q, 3) == 0
ok: __builtin_dynamic_object_size(q, 2) == 0
[opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 108896]$
> On Aug 1, 2023, at 6:57 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 09:35:30PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2023, at 1:07 PM, S
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-31 13:03, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On 2023-07-31 12:47, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Hi, Sid and Jakub,
>>>
>>> I have a question in the following source portion of the routine
, -1);
expect(__builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 0), -1);
expect(__builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 3), 0);
expect(__builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 2), 0);
return 0;
}
> On Jul 19, 2023, at 2:52 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> T
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 2:23 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-31 14:13, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Okay. I see.
>> Then if the size info from the TYPE is smaller than the size info from the
>> malloc,
>> then based on the current code, we use the small
Hi, Sid,
Thanks a lot.
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-31 13:03, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On 2023-07-31 12:47, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Hi, Sid and Jakub,
>>>
>>> I have a question in the following source por
Hi, Sid and Jakub,
I have a question in the following source portion of the routine
“addr_object_size” of gcc/tree-object-size.cc:
743 bytes = compute_object_offset (TREE_OPERAND (ptr, 0), var);
744 if (bytes != error_mark_node)
745 {
746 bytes =
> On Jul 21, 2023, at 7:21 AM, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
> This patch adds a warning for allocations with insufficient size
> based on the "alloc_size" attribute and the type of the pointer
> the result is assigned to. While it is theoretically legal to
> assign to the
Hi,
In the current GCC13 release note, the URL to the option -fstrict-flex-array
is wrong (pointing to -Wstrict-flex-array).
This is the change to correct the URL and also add the URL in another place
where -fstrict-flex-array is mentioned.
I have checked the resulting HTML file, works well.
>>
>> The point is: allocation size should synced with the value of “counted_by”.
>> LLVM’s RFC also have the similar requirement:
>> https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enforcing-bounds-safety-in-c-fbounds-safety/70854#maintaining-correctness-of-bounds-annotations-18
>
> Right, I'm saying it
More thoughts on the following example Kees provided:
> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> The counted_by attribute is used to annotate a Flexible array member on how
>> many elements it will have.
>> However, if this information can not accurately reflect the real number of
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 15:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +,
> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocate
> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocated, if I'm
> reading that correctly?
I think that the major point in PR109557
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109557):
for the following pointer p.3_1,
p.3_1 = p;
Hi,
This is the change for the GCC14 releaes Notes on the deprecating of a C
extension about flexible array members.
Okay for committing?
thanks.
Qing
*htdocs/gcc-14/changes.html (Caveats): Add notice about deprecating a C
extension about flexible array members.
---
===
Qing
> On Jul 7, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.07.2023 um 18:56 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>> Hi, Kees,
>>>
>>>
> On Jul 6, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.07.2023 um 18:56 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>> Hi, Kees,
>>
>> I have updated my V1 patch with the following changes:
>> A. changed the name to "counted_by"
>> B. ch
thanks.
Qing
> On May 26, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> GCC will pass the number of elements info from the attached attribute to
>> both
>> __builtin_dynamic_object_size and bounds sani
On Jun 28, 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> In summary, Ada’s Boolean variables (whether it’s hardened or not) are
>> represented as
>> enumeration types in GNU IR.
>
> Not quite. Only boolean types with representation clauses are. Those
> without (such as Standard.Boolean
> On Jun 28, 2023, at 3:26 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> I'd probably have arranged for the front-end to create the initializer
> value, because expansion time is too late to figure it out: we may not
> even have the front-end at hand any more, in case of lto compilation.
>>>
Hi, Alexandre,
Thanks a lot for the work. I think that this will be a valuable feature to be
added for GCC’s security functionality.
I have several questions on this patch:
1. The implementation of register scrubbing, -fzero-call-used-regs, is to
insert the register zeroing sequence in
might need to
extend the C FE to accept ".count” in the future.
Let me know if you have further comments and suggestions.
thanks.
Qing
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 16, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
Hi, Alexandre,
> On Jun 23, 2023, at 10:38 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> For normal Boolean variables, 0x00 is false, this is a reasonable init
>> value with zero-initialization.
>
> *nod*. I was surprised by zero initialization of (non-hardened)
> booleans even when pattern is requested,
> On Jun 23, 2023, at 7:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> It’s better to add this definition earlier in the list of the “three
>> basic values”, to make it “four basic values”, like the following:
>
> Oh, m
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> I see that you have testing case to check the above built_in_trap call
>> is generated by FE.
>> Do you have a testing case to check the trap is happening at
Hi, Alexandre,
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 9:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Hello, Qing,
>
> On Jun 16, 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned in the previous round of review, I think that the
>> documentation
>> might need to add more details on w
Hi, Alexandre,
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc b/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
> index 22e240a3c2a55..f9cc609b54d94 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.cc
> @@ -2226,6 +2226,35 @@ convert_lvalue_to_rvalue (location_t loc, struct
> c_expr exp,
> exp.value = convert
> On Jun 16, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> So for
>>>
>>> struct foo { int c; int buf[(struct { int d; }){ .d = .c }]; };
>>>
>>> one knows d
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively) as the last
field.
This patch is to introduce the IR bit
__builtin_object_size should treat struct with TYPE_INCLUDES_FLEXARRAY as
flexible size.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
* tree-object-size.cc (addr_object_size): Handle structure/union type
when it has flexible size.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"The GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
* A
they have been
approved already.
for the patch 3/3, I will wait for several days, if there is no
objection or new comments, I will commit it the end of this week.
Please let me know if you have comments and suggestions.
thanks.
Qing
Qing Zhao (3):
Introduce IR bit TYPE_INCLUDES_FLEXARRAY
> On Jun 16, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, dem 16.06.2023 um 16:21 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
Note that no expressions can start with the '.' token at present. As soon
as you invent a new
Hi, Alexandre,
> On Jun 16, 2023, at 3:26 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Hello, Qing,
>
> On Oct 27, 2022, Qing Zhao wrote:
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604480.html>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2022, at 5:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>&
> On Jun 16, 2023, at 3:21 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 15.06.2023 um 16:55 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
> ...
>>> 1. Update the routine “c_parser_postfix_expression” (is this
> On Jun 15, 2023, at 6:48 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> B. The argument of the new attribute “counted_by” is an identifier that can
>> be
>> accepted by “c_parser_attribute_arguments”:
>>
>&
> On Jun 15, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Comparing B with A, I don’t see too much benefit, either from
>> user-interface point of view, or from implementation point of view.
>>
>> F
your help.
Qing
> On Jun 7, 2023, at 6:05 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting to use identifier directly as the argument of the
>> attribute?
>> I tried this in the beginning, however, the current p
for commit to trunk?
Thanks a lot!
Qing
> On Jun 5, 2023, at 11:12 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> Ping on this patch.
>
> The C FE and Doc changes has been approved.
> Please help to review and approve the Middle-end change.
>
> Or provide guide on how
> On Jun 7, 2023, at 6:05 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting to use identifier directly as the argument of the
>> attribute?
>> I tried this in the beginning, however, the current parser for
> On Jun 7, 2023, at 4:53 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Hi, Joseph,
>>
>> A question here: can an identifier in C be a wide char string?
>
> Identifiers and strings are different kinds of tokens
Hi, Joseph,
A question here: can an identifier in C be a wide char string?
Qing
> On May 26, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> What if the string is a wide string? I don't expect that to work (ei
Ping on this patch.
The C FE and Doc changes has been approved.
Please help to review and approve the Middle-end change.
Or provide guide on how to move this patch forward.
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
Subjec
> On May 26, 2023, at 12:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> This patch set introduces a new attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds
>> for C99 flexible array member.
>
> Thank you for this wo
Joseph,
could you please review this patch and see whether it's Okay for commit
now?
thanks a lot for all your comments and suggestions for this patch.
Qing.
==
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"The GCC
Richard or Jakub,
could you please review this patch and see whether it's Okay to commit?
thanks a lot.
Qing
===
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively) as
Hi,
This is the 8th version of the patch, which rebased on the latest trunk.
This is an important patch needed by Linux Kernel security project.
compared to the 8th version, the Only change is in PATCH 2/2 (per
Joseph's comment):
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index
ame.
Thanks a lot for your suggestions and comments.
Qing
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 25.05.2023 um 16:14 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>> 2023-05-17 Qing Zhao
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> PR C/108896
>>
> On May 26, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> GCC will pass the number of elements info from the attached attribute to
>> both
>> __builtin_dynamic_object_size and bounds sanitizer to check the
> On May 26, 2023, at 4:12 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> Another question: is it better for me to rearrange the Patch 1/2 and Patch
>> 2/2 a little bit,
>> to put the FE , doc change and corresponding
> On May 26, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> What if the string is a wide string? I don't expect that to work (either
>>> as a matter of interface design, or in the present code), but I th
Thank you for the suggestion.
> On May 26, 2023, at 1:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>>> On May 25, 2023, at 4:51 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> The documentation in this case is OK, though
> On May 25, 2023, at 5:02 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> What happens if the field giving the number of elements is in a contained
> anonymous structure or union?
>
> struct s {
> struct { size_t count; };
> int array[] __attribute__ ((element_count ("count")));
> };
>
> This ought to work
> On May 25, 2023, at 4:51 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> The documentation in this case is OK, though claims about how a future
> version will behave have a poor track record (we tend to end up with such
> claims persisting in the documentation even though the change in question
> didn't get
2023-05-17 Qing Zhao
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
PR C/108896
* c-ubsan.cc (ubsan_instrument_bounds): Use element_count attribute
information.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR C/108896
* gcc.dg/ubsan/flex-array-element-count-bounds.c: New test.
---
gcc/c-family
2023-05-17 Qing Zhao
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR C/108896
* tree-object-size.cc (addr_object_size): Use the element_count
attribute info.
* tree.cc (component_ref_has_element_count_p): New function.
(component_ref_get_element_count): New function.
* tree.h
detect
out-of-bound errors for flexible array member references.
2023-05-17 Qing Zhao
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
PR C/108896
* c-attribs.cc (handle_element_count_attribute): New function.
* c-common.cc (c_flexible_array_member_type_p): To this.
* c-common.h (c_flex
Hi,
This patch set introduces a new attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds
for C99 flexible array member.
A gcc bugzilla PR108896 has been created to record this task:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
A nice writeup "Bounded Flexible Arrays in C"
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"The GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
* A
(Resend due to the previous patches didn't include the version number)
Hi,
This is the 8th version of the patch, which rebased on the latest trunk.
This is an important patch needed by Linux Kernel security project.
compared to the 7th version, the major change are:
1. update the documentation
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively) as the last
field.
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
*
> On May 25, 2023, at 1:41 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>
> On 24 May 2023 16:09:21 CEST, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Bernhard,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your comments.
>>
>>> On May 19, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>>&g
Hi,
This is the 8th version of the patch, which rebased on the latest trunk.
This is an important patch needed by Linux Kernel security project.
compared to the 7th version, the major change are:
1. update the documentation wordings based on Joseph's suggestions.
2. change the name of the new
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"The GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
* A
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively) as the last
field.
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
*
ote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> +GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 @dfn{flexible array
>
> "The GCC extension" or "A GCC extension".
>
>> +@item
>> +A structure containing a C99 flexib
Bernhard,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
> On May 19, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 20:49:47 +
> Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
>
Joseph,
Thanks a lot for the review. And sorry for my late reply (just came back from a
short vacation).
> On May 19, 2023, at 5:12 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> +GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure.
"GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
* A
GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a flexible array member
is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
__builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/101832
* c-decl.cc (finish_struct):
Hi,
This is the 7th version of the patch, which rebased on the latest trunk.
This is an important patch needed by Linux Kernel security project.
We already have an extensive discussion on this issue and I have went
through 6 revisions of the patches based on the discussion and resolved
all the
> On May 11, 2023, at 12:08 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 10, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>>> Honza,
>>>> Main motivation for this was profiling programs that contain specific
>>>> code p
> On May 10, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> Honza,
>>> Main motivation for this was profiling programs that contain specific
>>> code paths for different CPUs (such as graphics library in Firefox or Linux
>>> kernel). In the situation training machine differs from the machine
>>>
Honza,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
> On May 9, 2023, at 6:22 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>
> From my understanding, -fprofile-partial-training is one important option
> for PGO performance.
I don't think so, speed benefit would be rather small I guess.
>>> I saw some
> On May 4, 2023, at 9:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/4/23 14:54, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 4, 2023, at 4:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/3/23 21:10, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> Hi, Jan,
>>
> On May 4, 2023, at 4:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/3/23 21:10, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi, Jan,
>>
>> You added the following patch into gcc10:
>>
>> From 34fbe3f0946f88828765184ed6581bda62cdf49f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> F
Hi, Jan,
You added the following patch into gcc10:
>From 34fbe3f0946f88828765184ed6581bda62cdf49f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:12:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] cgraphclones.c (localize_profile): New function.
* cgraphclones.c (localize_profile): New
Hi,
Is this patch ready for GCC14?
Thanks.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>>
Subject: Fwd: [V6][PATCH 2/2] Update documentation to clarify a GCC extension
Date: April 11, 2023 at 9:38:29 AM EDT
To: Joseph Myers mail
Hi,
Is this patch ready for GCC14?
Thanks.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>>
Subject: Fwd: [V6][PATCH 1/2] Handle component_ref to a structre/union field
including flexible array member [PR101832]
Date: April 11, 2023 at 9
ension
This is basically a C FE and documentation change, I have updated it based
on previous comments and suggestions.
Joseph, could you review it to see whether this version is ready to go?
Thanks a lot.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
to the
Kernel security.
Thanks.
Qing
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 2:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 03:49:43PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> the C front-end has been approved by Joseph.
>>
>> Jacub, could you please eview the middle end part of th
Hi, Joseph,
This is the 2nd ping to the 6th version of the patch -:)
Please let me know if you have any further comments on the patch, and whether
it’s Okay to commit it to trunk?
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
mailto:gcc-patches
Hi, Jakub,
This is the 2nd ping to the 6th version of the patches -:)
Please let me know if you have any further comments on this patch, and whether
it’s Okay to commit it to trunk?
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
mailto:gcc-patches
Hi, Joseph and Jakub,
This is the 2nd ping to the 6th version of the patches -:)
Please let me know if you have any further comments on the patches, and whether
it’s Okay to commit them to trunk?
Thanks a lot for the help.
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z
Ping….
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Update documentation to clarify a GCC extension
Date: March 28, 2023 at 11:49:44 AM EDT
To: ja...@redhat.com<mailto:ja...@redhat.com>,
jos...@codesourcery.com<mailto:jos...@c
Ping…
Qing
Begin forwarded message:
From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
Subject: [V6][PATCH 1/2] Handle component_ref to a structre/union field
including flexible array member [PR101832]
Date: March 28, 2023 at 11:49:43 AM EDT
To: ja...@redhat.com<mailto:ja...@redhat.c
> On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:42 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:14 AM Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:52 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
a review from Jakub for the Middle-end.
bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64 and x86.
Okay for commit?
thanks.
Qing
=
Qing Zhao (2):
Handle component_ref to a structre/union field including flexible
array member [PR101832]
Update documentation to clarify a GCC extension
the C front-end has been approved by Joseph.
Jacub, could you please eview the middle end part of the changes of this patch?
The major change is in tree-object-size.cc (addr_object_size).
(To use the new TYPE_INCLUDE_FLEXARRAY info).
This patch is to fix
on a structure with a C99 flexible array member being nested in
another structure. (PR77650)
"GCC extension accepts a structure containing an ISO C99 "flexible array
member", or a union containing such a structure (possibly recursively)
to be a member of a structure.
There are two situations:
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 12:48 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 04:22:25PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> The latter IMHO. Havi
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 04:22:25PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> The latter IMHO. Having a warning with completely nonsensical name will
>>> just confuse users.
>>
>> Okay. -:)
>
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:57:58PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>> +Please use warning option @option{-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end}
>>>> to
>>> This is certainly misnamed.
>>
&
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 11:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:38:34PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 13:38 +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote
AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> Ping…
>
> Please let me know if you have any further comments on the patch.
>
> thanks.
>
> Qing
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Qing Zhao mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
> Subject: [V5][PAT
> On Mar 23, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> +Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end
>> +C C++ Var(warn_variable_sized_type_not_at_end) Warning
>> +Warn about structures or unions w
> On Mar 23, 2023, at 2:55 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/101832
>> * c-decl.cc<http://c-decl.cc> (finish_struct): Set TYPE_INCLUDE_FLEXARRAY for
301 - 400 of 1199 matches
Mail list logo
