public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bugdal at aerifal dot cx" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/56955] documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 21:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-56955-4-OBVajvm1Ww@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-56955-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955

--- Comment #10 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> ---
I don't see how it's at all helpful for GCC to assume that memory obtained by
__attribute__((__malloc__)) functions does not contain pointers to anything
that existed before the call. This assumption only aids optimization in the
case where a pointer residing in the obtained memory is used (e.g. dereferenced
or compared with another pointer) before anything is stored to it. But with
GCC's assumption, such use would be UB anyway and thus cannot occur in a
correct program, so there's no sense in optimizing it.

The alternative is much more reasonable: assume that a pointer residing in the
obtained memory could alias any object whose address has already escaped
(roughly, anything but automatic or static/internal-linkage objects whose
addresses were not taken and passed to code the compiler can't see). This
allows __attribute__((__malloc__)) to be applied to realloc-like functions as
well as functions in third-party libraries which allocate non-opaque structures
whose members may point to data that's also accessible via other paths. And as
far as I can tell, it doesn't preclude any optimizations that could take place
in a code path that doesn't invoke UB.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-05-20 21:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-56955-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-04-14 19:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-14 19:47 ` sunfish at google dot com
2013-04-15 10:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-15 14:53 ` sunfish at google dot com
2014-05-20 20:41 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-20 20:49 ` carlos at redhat dot com
2014-05-20 20:51 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-20 21:00 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx [this message]
2014-05-21  0:31 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-21  1:26 ` sunfish at mozilla dot com
2014-05-21  4:22 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-21 12:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-21 13:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-21 14:33 ` sunfish at mozilla dot com
2014-05-21 15:14 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-22 14:14 ` eggert at gnu dot org
2014-05-23 10:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-23 10:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-56955-4-OBVajvm1Ww@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).