similar to: [LLVMdev] alloc_size metadata

Hi Nuno, > I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it really buy them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! Ciao, Duncan. This > attribute exists in gcc since version 4.3. > The attribute specifies that a function returns a buffer with the size > given by the

On 5/24/12 3:51 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nuno, > >> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. > does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it really buy > them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! Tools like ASan and SAFECode *could* use this attribute to determine the size of memory objects created by

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:43 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/24/12 3:51 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Nuno, > > > >> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. > > does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it really > buy > > them anything? How about "implementing" it by

Hi John, On 25/05/12 17:22, John Criswell wrote: > On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi John, >> >>>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. >>>> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it really buy >>>> them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! >>>

On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:43:52 +0200 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 25/05/12 17:22, John Criswell wrote: > > On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi John, > >> > >>>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. > >>>> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if

On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi John, > >>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. >>> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it >>> really buy >>> them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! >> > ... >> >> Currently, SAFECode has a pass which

>> On 25/05/12 17:22, John Criswell wrote: >> > On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >>>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. >> >>>> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it >> >>>> really buy them anything? How about

Hi John, >>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. >> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it really buy >> them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! > ... > > Currently, SAFECode has a pass which just recognizes certain functions as > allocators and knows how to interpret the arguments

>>>> Currently, SAFECode has a pass which just recognizes certain functions as >>>> allocators and knows how to interpret the arguments to find the >>>> size. If we want >>>> SAFECode to work with another allocator (like a program's custom >>>> allocator, the >>>> Objective-C allocator, the Boehm garbage collector,

On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:37:40 +0100 Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> On 25/05/12 17:22, John Criswell wrote: > >> > On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> >> Hi John, > >> >> > >> >>>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. > >> >>>> does anyone

On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > So here is a new proposal: > > !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata is variable length? You'll probably want to write up some docs for the website on how this is supposed to be laid out and work. -eric

Hi, So here is a new proposal: !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } alloc_size_fn and offset_fn are functions that return either i32/i64 depending on the platform, and they must have the same number of arguments (not necessarily the same as the as allocation function). The parameters are given in the metadata as well. To accommodate the common case, offer_fn can be

Hi Nuno, > So here is a new proposal: > > !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } > > alloc_size_fn and offset_fn are functions that return either i32/i64 > depending on the platform, and they must have the same number of > arguments (not necessarily the same as the as allocation function). > The parameters are given in the metadata as well. > To

Quoting Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> So here is a new proposal: >> >> !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } > > The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata > is variable length? Variable length. I think that's

>> So here is a new proposal: >> >> !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } >> >> alloc_size_fn and offset_fn are functions that return either i32/i64 >> depending on the platform, and they must have the same number of >> arguments (not necessarily the same as the as allocation function). >> The parameters are given in the metadata as

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:37:31 +0100 Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, > > So here is a new proposal: > > !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } > > alloc_size_fn and offset_fn are functions that return either i32/i64 > depending on the platform, and they must have the same number of > arguments (not necessarily the same as the

>> >> I think this is a good point, here's a suggestion: >> >> >> >> Have the metadata name two functions, both assumed to have the same >> >> signature as the tagged function, one which returns the offset of >> >> the start of the allocated region and one which returns the length >> >> of the allocated region.

>> Hi, >> >> So here is a new proposal: >> >> !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } >> >> alloc_size_fn and offset_fn are functions that return either i32/i64 >> depending on the platform, and they must have the same number of >> arguments (not necessarily the same as the as allocation function). >> The parameters are

Hi Nuno, >> I think this is a good point, here's a suggestion: >> >> Have the metadata name two functions, both assumed to have the same >> signature as the tagged function, one which returns the offset of the >> start of the allocated region and one which returns the length of the >> allocated region. Alternatively, these functions could take the same

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:23:56 +0200 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Nuno, > > >> I think this is a good point, here's a suggestion: > >> > >> Have the metadata name two functions, both assumed to have the same > >> signature as the tagged function, one which returns the offset of > >> the start of the allocated region and