From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-416073-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3712 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2013 15:01:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 3616 invoked by uid 48); 22 Feb 2013 15:01:12 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:01:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-mwMkZRHkXj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg02238.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309

--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-22 15:01:08 UTC ---
Looks like a real SPEC bug to me.

PerlIO_funcs *
PerlIO_find_layer(pTHX_ const char *name, STRLEN len, int load)
{
    IV i;
    if ((SSize_t) len <= 0)
        len = strlen(name);
    for (i = 0; i < PL_known_layers->cur; i++) {
        PerlIO_funcs *f = PL_known_layers->array[i].funcs;
        if (memEQ(f->name, name, len) && f->name[len] == 0) {
            PerlIO_debug("%.*s => %p\n", (int) len, name, (void*)f);
            return f;
        }
    }

memEQ is memcmp, and my reading of ISO C99 or
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/memcmp.html is that
it is a bug to call memcmp ("abcdef", "defg", 6).  A valid memcmp
implementation could preread all bytes from both arrays (of the given length)
and only then compare.  And, at least some implementations (e.g. glibc
string/memcmp.c) does that if the two strings aren't starting at the same
address modulo size of word.