search for: wonder_malloc

...#39;t pay for what you don't > use" rule, I don't see any reason why not. the question then arises of what those "markers" should be, and kind of brings things full circle to Nuno's original suggestion of calculating the hi/lo bounds explicitly just before the call to wonder_malloc, and sticking metadata on the call to say "this value holds the lower bound and this one the upper". The problem with that is presumably that the optimizers will just zap the apparently unused hi/lo values. Ciao, Duncan.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:56:30 +0200 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > To do bounds checking you need two things: First you need to know > > the bounds (this requires tracking calls to allocation functions), > > and then you need to look at memory accesses. My guess is that > > running the analysis late helps much more with the second

Hi Hal, > To do bounds checking you need two things: First you need to know the > bounds (this requires tracking calls to allocation functions), and then > you need to look at memory accesses. My guess is that running the > analysis late helps much more with the second part than with the first. > So I would split this into two pieces. Prior to inlining, add whatever > is