|Subject:||Re: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking with tcc|
|Date:||Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:20:20 +0100|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2|
Wondering why you think a mailing-list is a review/tests review
Not under-rating your work, it's very fine, but why not a private chat ?
Or only when tested a simple comment on a fork ?
Btw, I'd be glad to test it on x86 32 bits linux 5.0.
Little updated patch. Still needs more work.
On 2019-12-02 18:24, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
I did some debugging with bouds-checking and came up with attached patch.
I seriously doubt any one did use bounds checking in a large project before.
Currently I can use this now in a large multi threaded project. It still needs some more testing so do not apply the patch yet.
I disabled some errors. For example if a bounded pointer is not found I give no error. I also relaxed printing free errors.
There were some off by 1 errors in lib/bcheck.c and I needed to make the code thread safe.
I used the patch to not link in libtcc1.a in shared objects when bounds checking so I have only one memory pool.
This has to be documented because you cannot use this with dlopen for example.
I also added the pthread library when bounds checking so it is now multi threaded.
I found another problem with nocode_wanted when using sizeof().
Also the push/pop trick needed to push some more registers when more parameters are passed in registers.
I probably forget to mention a lot a other changes. See the patch.
I only tested this on linux x86_64. There are for sure problems on other targets.
On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote:
but to maybe be a bit more constructive:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
I see, yeah, expanding calls during calls is broken as gfunc_call in theI fixed this with some push/pop trickery.
generators doesn't generally leave a trace in vtop which registers are
currently holding values. I think you only need so push/pop si/di, as
cx/dx aren't used intentionally during reg-param setup.
(I think i386-gen.c has a simila bug with fastcall functions).
And perhaps another compromise: only conditionally enable tracking ofThis probably could beDo we? Can we perhaps also simply declare bounds checking to work only
improved. I have now added a minimum patch so bounds checking works a
little bit. We need still to fix the shared lib reloc problems and the
with the main executable? Or remove that whole feature altogether?
locals: Invent a new cmdline option (say, '-bb'), which sets
do_bounds_checking to 2. And only if it's > 1 you would also track
locals, whereas with == 1 you would only track arrays and structs.
Your decision, I think you can push this patch either with that change, or
without (but try to remove cx/dx from the push/pop). It doesn't make tccs
source code larger or uglier in any meaningful way, but does fix practical
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list address@hidden https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|