* [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization @ 2018-09-21 11:10 Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 18:16 ` Segher Boessenkool 2018-09-21 19:44 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> PR middle-end/81035 * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi index e3312aa8b42..909e7a17357 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi @@ -3157,6 +3157,9 @@ The @code{noreturn} keyword does not affect the exceptional path when that applies: a @code{noreturn}-marked function may still return to the caller by throwing an exception or calling @code{longjmp}. +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. + Do not assume that registers saved by the calling function are restored before calling the @code{noreturn} function. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 11:10 [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 18:16 ` Segher Boessenkool 2018-09-21 18:29 ` Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 19:44 ` Jeff Law 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2018-09-21 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: gcc-patches On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > PR middle-end/81035 > * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that > noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. > +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to > +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. Should we document this? Shouldn't we fix it, instead? Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 18:16 ` Segher Boessenkool @ 2018-09-21 18:29 ` Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 18:36 ` Paul Koning 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: gcc-patches * Segher Boessenkool: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> >> >> PR middle-end/81035 >> * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that >> noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. > >> +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to >> +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. > > Should we document this? Shouldn't we fix it, instead? Fix how? What is currently broken? For things like assertion failures, we do not want to replace the current stack frame with that of __assert_fail, I think. Thanks, Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 18:29 ` Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 18:36 ` Paul Koning 2018-09-21 18:40 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Paul Koning @ 2018-09-21 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: Segher Boessenkool, gcc-patches > On Sep 21, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > > * Segher Boessenkool: > >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> >>> >>> PR middle-end/81035 >>> * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that >>> noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. >> >>> +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to >>> +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. >> >> Should we document this? Shouldn't we fix it, instead? > > Fix how? What is currently broken? > > For things like assertion failures, we do not want to replace the > current stack frame with that of __assert_fail, I think. I agree. Also, tailcalls are optimizations. Speed optimizing noreturn calls is obviously not interesting. Calls to noreturn functions are short, and turning them into a jump probably makes no difference in size, or if it does, not enough to matter. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 18:36 ` Paul Koning @ 2018-09-21 18:40 ` Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 22:32 ` Segher Boessenkool 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Koning; +Cc: Segher Boessenkool, gcc-patches * Paul Koning: >> On Sep 21, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> * Segher Boessenkool: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> PR middle-end/81035 >>>> * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that >>>> noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. >>> >>>> +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to >>>> +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. >>> >>> Should we document this? Shouldn't we fix it, instead? >> >> Fix how? What is currently broken? >> >> For things like assertion failures, we do not want to replace the >> current stack frame with that of __assert_fail, I think. > > I agree. Also, tailcalls are optimizations. Speed optimizing > noreturn calls is obviously not interesting. Calls to noreturn > functions are short, and turning them into a jump probably makes no > difference in size, or if it does, not enough to matter. The example in the bug report shows that tail calls can avoid setting up a stack frame, leading to smaller code size and CFI. Thanks, Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 18:40 ` Florian Weimer @ 2018-09-21 22:32 ` Segher Boessenkool 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2018-09-21 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: Paul Koning, gcc-patches On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:36:45PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Paul Koning: > > >> On Sep 21, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> * Segher Boessenkool: > >> > >>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>>> 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > >>>> > >>>> PR middle-end/81035 > >>>> * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that > >>>> noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. > >>> > >>>> +In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to > >>>> +@code{noreturn} functions into tail calls. > >>> > >>> Should we document this? Shouldn't we fix it, instead? > >> > >> Fix how? What is currently broken? It prevents a useful optimisation for no good reason. > >> For things like assertion failures, we do not want to replace the > >> current stack frame with that of __assert_fail, I think. This isn't much different with all other tail calls. > > I agree. Also, tailcalls are optimizations. Speed optimizing > > noreturn calls is obviously not interesting. Calls to noreturn > > functions are short, and turning them into a jump probably makes no > > difference in size, or if it does, not enough to matter. > > The example in the bug report shows that tail calls can avoid setting up > a stack frame, leading to smaller code size and CFI. Yes. For example on PowerPC, *all* calls require the caller to have a stack frame. (This isn't different on other architectures' ABIs; it's just that we don't create stack frames implicitly). Avoiding to create a stack frame is a serious optimisation. With better shrink-wrapping it is less of an issue than it was in the past, but still. The whole point of tail calls is to destroy a stack frame. If that makes debugging too hard, then -Og should not create sibcalls. Only doing it for noreturn functions (and not only doing it in debug builds) doesn't make much sense IMO. Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization 2018-09-21 11:10 [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 18:16 ` Segher Boessenkool @ 2018-09-21 19:44 ` Jeff Law 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2018-09-21 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer, gcc-patches On 9/21/18 4:59 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > 2018-09-21 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > PR middle-end/81035 > * doc/extend.texi (Common Function Attributes): Mention that > noreturn suppresses tail call optimization. OK. jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-21 22:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-09-21 11:10 [PATCH] middle-end/81035: Mention that noreturn suppresses tail call optimization Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 18:16 ` Segher Boessenkool 2018-09-21 18:29 ` Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 18:36 ` Paul Koning 2018-09-21 18:40 ` Florian Weimer 2018-09-21 22:32 ` Segher Boessenkool 2018-09-21 19:44 ` Jeff Law
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).