Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. We will keep this in mind. Qing > On Oct 27, 2023, at 1:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Since the dynamic array support is quite important to the kernel (is this >> true, Kees? ), >> We might need to i

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > Since the dynamic array support is quite important to the kernel (is this > true, Kees? ), > We might need to include such support into our design in the beginning. tl;dr: We don't need "dynamic array support" in the 1st version of __

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

About where we should insert the new __builtin_with_access_and_size: > On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:54 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:05 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 26.10.2023 um 12:14 schrieb Martin Uecker : >>> >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 11:20

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 10:53 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Freitag, dem 27.10.2023 um 14:32 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 3:21 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 19:57 + schrieb Qing Zhao: I guess that what Kees wanted, ""fill th

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Freitag, dem 27.10.2023 um 14:32 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > On Oct 27, 2023, at 3:21 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 19:57 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > I guess that what Kees wanted, ""fill the array without knowing the > > > actual final size" code pa

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 3:21 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 19:57 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> I guess that what Kees wanted, ""fill the array without knowing the actual >> final size" code pattern”, as following: >> struct foo *f; char *p;

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 19:57 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > I guess that what Kees wanted, ""fill the array without knowing the actual > final size" code pattern”, as following: > > > > struct foo *f; > > > char *p; > > > int i; > > > > > > f = alloc(maximum_possible); > > > f->c

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

I guess that what Kees wanted, ""fill the array without knowing the actual final size" code pattern”, as following: >> struct foo *f; >> char *p; >> int i; >> >> f = alloc(maximum_possible); >> f->count = 0; >> p = f->buf; >> >> for (i; data_is_available() &&

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 16:41 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 5:20 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM M

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:05 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > > >> Am 26.10.2023 um 12:14 schrieb Martin Uecker : >> >> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 11:20 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 26.10.2023 um 19:05 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 16:41 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 5:20 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Ma

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 16:41 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > On Oct 26, 2023, at 5:20 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 09:13 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:15:10AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote: > > but not this: > > x->count = 11; > > char *p = &x->buf; > > x->count = 1; > > p[10] = 1; // ! > > This seems fine to me -- it's how I'd expect it to work: "10" is

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 5:20 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 13:13 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 sc

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 17:48 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > Am 26.10.2023 um 16:58 schrieb Qing Zhao : > > > >  > > > > > On Oct 26, 2023, at 4:56 AM, Richard Biener > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:15:10AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote: > but not this: > > char *p = &x->buf; > x->count = 1; > p[10] = 1; // ! This seems fine to me -- it's how I'd expect it to work: "10" is beyond "1". > (because the pointer is passed around the > store to the counter) > > and also h

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 26.10.2023 um 16:58 schrieb Qing Zhao : > >  > >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 4:56 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:03:43PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: For the code generation impact: turn

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 4:56 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:03:43PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> For the code generation impact: >>> >>> turning the original x.buf >>> to a builtin function call >>> __built

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 1:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:03:43PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >> For the code generation impact: >> >> turning the original x.buf >> to a builtin function call >> __builtin_with_access_and_size(x,buf, x.L,-1) >> >> might inhibit some opti

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 26.10.2023 um 12:14 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 11:20 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: >>> Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 11:20 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: > Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 13:13 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > > > > > > > Am

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.10.2023 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 13:13 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > > > > > Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 2

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:03:43PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > > For the code generation impact: > > > > turning the original x.buf > > to a builtin function call > > __builtin_with_access_and_size(x,buf, x.L,-1) > > > > might inhibit some op

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:16 PM Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 13:13 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > > > Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 06:25 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: > > > > > On 2023-10-25 04:16, Ma

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 15:32 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:27:41PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2023, at 6:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 01:27:29PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > > A. Add an additional argument, t

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:03:43PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > For the code generation impact: > > turning the original x.buf > to a builtin function call > __builtin_with_access_and_size(x,buf, x.L,-1) > > might inhibit some optimizations from happening before the builtin is > evaluated into obj

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:27:41PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > > On Oct 25, 2023, at 6:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 01:27:29PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> A. Add an additional argument, the size parameter, to __bdos, > >> A.1, during FE; > >> A.2, during

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 6:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 01:27:29PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >> A. Add an additional argument, the size parameter, to __bdos, >> A.1, during FE; >> A.2, during gimplification phase; > > I just wanted to clarify that this is all just

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 01:27:29PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > A. Add an additional argument, the size parameter, to __bdos, > A.1, during FE; > A.2, during gimplification phase; I just wanted to clarify that this is all just an "internal" detail, yes? i.e. the __bdos() used by in C cod

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 07:51:55PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Yes, that's the tradeoff. However, maybe this is the point where Kees jumps > in and say the kernel doesn't really care as much or something like that :) "I only care about -O2" :) -- Kees Cook

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > > >> Am 25.10.2023 um 16:50 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar : >> >> On 2023-10-25 09:27, Qing Zhao wrote: > On Oct 24, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar > wrote: On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: > Thank

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 10:50 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-25 09:27, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> On Oct 24, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >>> >>> On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: Thanks for the proposal! So what you suggested is: For every x.buf, chan

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 7:13 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > > >> Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Martin Uecker : >> >> Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 06:25 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: On 2023-10-25 04:16, Martin Uecker wrote: Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 13:13 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 06:25 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: > > > > On 2023-10-25 04:16, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 25, 2023, at 6:39 AM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 12:25 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: >> >>> Am 25.10.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Martin Uecker : >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: >> Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schr

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 25.10.2023 um 16:50 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar : > > On 2023-10-25 09:27, Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 24, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >>> >>> On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: Thanks for the proposal! So what you suggested is: For every x.buf,

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-25 09:27, Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 24, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: Thanks for the proposal! So what you suggested is: For every x.buf, change it as a __builtin_with_size(x.buf, x.L) in the FE, then the call to the _bdos (x.bu

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Thanks for the proposal! >> So what you suggested is: >> For every x.buf, change it as a __builtin_with_size(x.buf, x.L) in the FE, >> then the call to the _bdos (x.buf, 1) will >> Become: >>

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 25.10.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 06:25 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: >>> On 2023-10-25 04:16, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uec

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 06:25 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: > On 2023-10-25 04:16, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > > > > > Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 12:25 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > Am 25.10.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > > > > > > Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 25.10.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: >> Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : >>> >>> Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: Hi, Sid, Really appreciate for

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-25 04:16, Martin Uecker wrote: Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: Hi, Sid, Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Ve

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 08:43 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > Hi, Sid, > > > > > > Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. > >

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 24.10.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Martin Uecker : > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> Hi, Sid, >> >> Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. >> I think that this example is an excellent example to show (almost) all the >> iss

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 22:51 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > On Oct 24, 2023, at 4:38 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > Hi, Sid, > > > > > > Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. > > >

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-24 18:51, Qing Zhao wrote: Thanks for the proposal! So what you suggested is: For every x.buf, change it as a __builtin_with_size(x.buf, x.L) in the FE, then the call to the _bdos (x.buf, 1) will Become: _bdos(__builtin_with_size(x.buf, x.L), 1)? Then the implicit use of x.L

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-24 18:41, Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 24, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On 2023-10-24 16:30, Qing Zhao wrote: Situation 2: With O0, the routine “get_size_from” was NOT inlined into “foo”, therefore, the call to __bdos is Not in the same routine as the instantiation of

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 4:38 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> Hi, Sid, >> >> Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. >> I think that this example is an excellent example to show (almost) all the >> i

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-24 16:30, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Situation 2: With O0, the routine “get_size_from” was NOT inlined into >> “foo”, therefore, the call to __bdos is Not in the same routine as the >> instantiation of the object, As a result, t

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-24 16:38, Martin Uecker wrote: Here is another proposal: Add a new builtin function __builtin_with_size(x, size) that return x but behaves similar to an allocation function in that BDOS can look at the size argument to discover the size. The FE insers this function when the field i

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-24 16:30, Qing Zhao wrote: Situation 2: With O0, the routine “get_size_from” was NOT inlined into “foo”, therefore, the call to __bdos is Not in the same routine as the instantiation of the object, As a result, the TYPE info and the attached counted_by info of the object can NOT be

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Dienstag, dem 24.10.2023 um 20:30 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > Hi, Sid, > > Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. > I think that this example is an excellent example to show (almost) all the > issues we need to consider. > > I slightly modified this example

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Hi, Sid, Really appreciate for your example and detailed explanation. Very helpful. I think that this example is an excellent example to show (almost) all the issues we need to consider. I slightly modified this example to make it to be compilable and run-able, as following: (but I still canno

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-23 15:43, Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:43 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On 2023-10-23 14:06, Martin Uecker wrote: We should aim for a good integration with the BDOS pass, so that it can propagate the information further, e.g. the following should work: struct { int L; c

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:37 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 19:00 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> >>> Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 20:06 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + s

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:43 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-23 14:06, Martin Uecker wrote: >> We should aim for a good integration with the BDOS pass, so >> that it can propagate the information further, e.g. the >> following should work: >> struct { int L; char buf[] __counted_by(L

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 19:00 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > > > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 20:06 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: > > > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 20:06 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: >> Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > Am 23.10.2023 um 16

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 14:43 -0400 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar: > On 2023-10-23 14:06, Martin Uecker wrote: > > We should aim for a good integration with the BDOS pass, so > > that it can propagate the information further, e.g. the > > following should work: > > > > struct { int L; char buf[]

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-23 14:06, Martin Uecker wrote: We should aim for a good integration with the BDOS pass, so that it can propagate the information further, e.g. the following should work: struct { int L; char buf[] __counted_by(L) } x; x.L = N; x.buf = ...; char *p = &x->f; __bdos(p) -> N So we need t

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 2:06 PM, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 23.10.2023 um 16:56 schrieb Qing Zhao :  > On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:57

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 20:06 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: > Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > > > On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Richard Biener > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 23.10.2023 um 16:56 schrieb Qing Zhao : > > > > > > > >  > > > > >

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, Qing Zhao wrote: > I prefer to implement this in gimplification phase since I am more > familiar with the code there.. (I think that implementing it in > gimplification should be very similar as implementing it in FE? Or do I > miss anything here?) > > Joseph, if implement

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Am Montag, dem 23.10.2023 um 16:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao: > > > On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Richard Biener > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Am 23.10.2023 um 16:56 schrieb Qing Zhao : > > > > > >  > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > > >> Am 23.10.2023 um 16:56 schrieb Qing Zhao : >> >>  >> >>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: > On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 23.10.2023 um 16:56 schrieb Qing Zhao : > >  > >> On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:27 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar > wrote: >> >> On 2023-10-23 03:57, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: > On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyare

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >>> >>> On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: How about the following: Add one more parameter to __b

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-23 08:34, Richard Biener wrote: A related issue is that assignment to the field and storage allocation are not tied together - if there's no use of the size data we might remove the store of it as dead. Maybe the trick then is to treat the size data as volatile? That ought to discou

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:27 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-23 03:57, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: > >>

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-23 03:57, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: How about the following: Add one more parameter to __builtin_dynamic_object_size(), i.e __builtin_d

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:41 PM Qing Zhao wrote: > > > > > On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > > On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> How about the following: > >> Add one more parameter to __builtin_dynamic_object_size(), i.e > >> __builtin_dynamic_object_size (

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 20, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: >> How about the following: >> Add one more parameter to __builtin_dynamic_object_size(), i.e >> __builtin_dynamic_object_size (_1,1,array_annotated->foo)? >> When we see the structure field has

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

On 2023-10-20 14:38, Qing Zhao wrote: How about the following: Add one more parameter to __builtin_dynamic_object_size(), i.e __builtin_dynamic_object_size (_1,1,array_annotated->foo)? When we see the structure field has counted_by attribute. Or maybe add a barrier preventing any assignme

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> On Oct 20, 2023, at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > > >> Am 20.10.2023 um 19:09 schrieb Qing Zhao : >> >> Sid, >> >> (Richard, can you please help me to make sure this? Thanks a lot) >> >> I studied a little bit more on the following question you raised during the >> review proce

Re: HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

> Am 20.10.2023 um 19:09 schrieb Qing Zhao : > > Sid, > > (Richard, can you please help me to make sure this? Thanks a lot) > > I studied a little bit more on the following question you raised during the > review process: > > For the following small testing case: > > 1 struct annotated

HELP: Will the reordering happen? Re: [V3][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

Sid, (Richard, can you please help me to make sure this? Thanks a lot) I studied a little bit more on the following question you raised during the review process: For the following small testing case: 1 struct annotated { 2 int foo; 3 char array[] __attribute__((counted_by (foo)));