From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: "Tsimbalist, Igor V" <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>,
"'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65d602c4-811c-f6a2-ac1b-b6e8f6bddbf7@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA8F902@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 09/13/2017 11:07 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tsimbalist, Igor V
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:59 PM
>> To: 'Jeff Law' <law@redhat.com>; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-
>> patches@gcc.gnu.org>
>> Cc: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:50 PM
>>> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>; 'gcc-
>>> patches@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
>>> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>>
>>> On 08/01/2017 02:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
>>>> Part#1. Add generic part for Intel CET enabling.
>>>>
>>
>>> Q. Do we need to do anything with ICF (identical code folding) and CFE?
>>> Given two functions which have the same implementation in gimple,
>>> except that one has a notrack indirect call and the other has a
>>> tracked indirect call, what is proper behavior? I think we'd keep
>>> them separate which implies we need to make sure the notrack attribute
>>> is part of the ICF hashing implementation. It'd probably even be
>>> worth building a test for this :-)
>> Are you talking about a case when such two functions are inlined? Or there is
>> a possibility to merge function bodies if they are identical?
>>
>> I agree with you that the functions should be kept separate. I haven't looked
>> into such optimization in gcc so I need to learn it.
> I thought over this case and my conclusion is that nothing has to be done regarding ICF.
>
> First of all let's sync on a case we are talking about. A code template could look like
>
> fn1 definition
> {
> <some code>
> }
>
> fn2 definition with notrack attribute
> {
> <the same code as in fn1>
> }
>
> func definition
> {
> <calling fn1>...<calling fn2>
> }
>
> Is it the case you are talking about? Let's consider different scenarios:
>
> 1) calls to fn1 and fn2 are direct calls. In that case 'notrack' has no effect on direct calls as they are
> assumed to be save (it applies to indirect calls only). ICF can be done here;
> 2) one of calls is an indirect call or both calls are indirect calls. If compiler can prove what exact functions
> are called then indirect call(s) can be replaced by direct call(s) and that gives us the case 1);
> 3) if compiler cannot prove what function is called it will keep the indirect call and so there is nothing
> to do for ICF here.
No, not the case I'm worried about. Instead
fn1()
{
indirect call where the signature is marked with notrack
}
fn2()
{
indirect call where the signature is not marked with notrack
}
fn1 and fn2 would be subject to ICF which I think is wrong.
Essentially we're carrying semantic information in attributes that are
part of the type of the function pointer. I think we need to include
those attributes when we hash and compare two objects for equality
within ICF.
Jeff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-01 8:56 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-08-15 14:08 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Richard Biener
2017-08-18 14:01 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-08-18 14:06 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Richard Biener
2017-08-18 14:58 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-12 15:34 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-15 11:12 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-15 12:14 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Richard Biener
2017-09-19 13:39 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-28 22:44 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-09-29 14:31 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-29 16:04 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-10-05 10:20 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-10-12 6:26 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-10-12 8:33 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-10-12 15:15 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-08-25 21:03 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-09-12 15:40 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-13 19:05 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-08-25 21:05 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-09-12 15:59 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-13 18:56 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Jeff Law
2017-09-13 17:08 ` 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling Tsimbalist, Igor V
2017-09-13 19:01 ` Jeff Law [this message]
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=65d602c4-811c-f6a2-ac1b-b6e8f6bddbf7@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com \
/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).