From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com (aserp2130.oracle.com [141.146.126.79]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30E0C3851C19 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:49:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 30E0C3851C19 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B1Jmv5F124456; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:49:10 GMT Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 353c2avmf6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:49:10 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B1JkNvL018877; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:47:10 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35404nahr6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:47:10 +0000 Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B1Jl8lM026106; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:47:08 GMT Received: from dhcp-10-154-152-102.vpn.oracle.com (/10.154.152.102) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 11:47:08 -0800 From: Qing Zhao Message-Id: <7618DD31-87EC-4003-B1DD-E318E5369A71@ORACLE.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Subject: Re: How to traverse all the local variables that declared in the current routine? Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:47:06 -0600 In-Reply-To: Cc: Richard Sandiford , gcc Patches To: Richard Biener References: <217BE64F-A623-4453-B45B-D38B66B71B72@ORACLE.COM> <15EA64C7-D75F-4CE1-92C8-6940186A512A@ORACLE.COM> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9822 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=3 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012010120 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9822 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=3 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012010120 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:49:16 -0000 Hi, Richard,=20 Could you please comment on the following approach: Instead of adding the zero-initializer quite late at the pass = =E2=80=9Cpass_expand=E2=80=9D, we can add it as early as during = gimplification.=20 However, we will mark these new added zero-initializers as = =E2=80=9Cartificial=E2=80=9D. And passing this =E2=80=9Cartificial=E2=80=9D= information to=20 =E2=80=9Cpass_early_warn_uninitialized=E2=80=9D and = =E2=80=9Cpass_late_warn_uninitialized=E2=80=9D, in these two = uninitialized variable analysis passes,=20 (i.e., in tree-sea-uninit.c) We will update the checking on = =E2=80=9Cssa_undefined_value_p=E2=80=9D to consider =E2=80=9Cartificial=E2= =80=9D zero-initializers.=20 (i.e, if the def_stmt is marked with =E2=80=9Cartificial=E2=80=9D, then = it=E2=80=99s a undefined value).=20 With such approach, we should be able to address all those conflicts.=20 Do you see any obvious issue with this approach? Thanks a lot for your help. Qing > On Nov 25, 2020, at 3:11 AM, Richard Biener = wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> I am planing to add a new phase immediately after = =E2=80=9Cpass_late_warn_uninitialized=E2=80=9D to initialize all = auto-variables that are >> not explicitly initialized in the declaration, the basic idea is = following: >>=20 >> ** The proposal: >>=20 >> A. add a new GCC option: (same name and meaning as CLANG) >> -ftrivial-auto-var-init=3D[pattern|zero], similar pattern init as = CLANG; >>=20 >> B. add a new attribute for variable: >> __attribute((uninitialized) >> the marked variable is uninitialized intentionaly for performance = purpose. >>=20 >> C. The implementation needs to keep the current static warning on = uninitialized >> variables untouched in order to avoid "forking the language". >>=20 >>=20 >> ** The implementation: >>=20 >> There are two major requirements for the implementation: >>=20 >> 1. all auto-variables that do not have an explicit initializer should = be initialized to >> zero by this option. (Same behavior as CLANG) >>=20 >> 2. keep the current static warning on uninitialized variables = untouched. >>=20 >> In order to satisfy 1, we should check whether an auto-variable has = initializer >> or not; >> In order to satisfy 2, we should add this new transformation after >> "pass_late_warn_uninitialized". >>=20 >> So, we should be able to check whether an auto-variable has = initializer or not after =E2=80=9Cpass_late_warn_uninitialized=E2=80=9D, >> If Not, then insert an initialization for it. >>=20 >> For this purpose, I guess that =E2=80=9CFOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL=E2=80=9D = might be better? >>=20 >>=20 >> I think both as long as they are source-level auto-variables. Then = which one is better? >>=20 >>=20 >> Another issue is, in order to check whether an auto-variable has = initializer, I plan to add a new bit in =E2=80=9Cdecl_common=E2=80=9D = as: >> /* In a VAR_DECL, this is DECL_IS_INITIALIZED. */ >> unsigned decl_is_initialized :1; >>=20 >> /* IN VAR_DECL, set when the decl is initialized at the declaration. = */ >> #define DECL_IS_INITIALIZED(NODE) \ >> (DECL_COMMON_CHECK (NODE)->decl_common.decl_is_initialized) >>=20 >> set this bit when setting DECL_INITIAL for the variables in FE. then = keep it >> even though DECL_INITIAL might be NULLed. >>=20 >>=20 >> For locals it would be more reliable to set this = flag-Wmaybe-uninitialized. >>=20 >>=20 >> You mean I can set the flag =E2=80=9CDECL_IS_INITIALIZED (decl)=E2=80=9D= inside the routine =E2=80=9Cgimpley_decl_expr=E2=80=9D (gimplify.c) as = following: >>=20 >> if (VAR_P (decl) && !DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)) >> { >> tree init =3D DECL_INITIAL (decl); >> ... >> if (init && init !=3D error_mark_node) >> { >> if (!TREE_STATIC (decl)) >> { >> DECL_IS_INITIALIZED(decl) =3D 1; >> } >>=20 >> Is this enough for all Frontends? Are there other places that I need = to maintain this bit? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Do you have any comment and suggestions? >>=20 >>=20 >> As said above - do you want to cover registers as well as locals? >>=20 >>=20 >> All the locals from the source-code point of view should be covered. = (=46rom my study so far, looks like that Clang adds that phase in FE). >> If GCC adds this phase in FE, then the following design requirement >>=20 >> C. The implementation needs to keep the current static warning on = uninitialized >> variables untouched in order to avoid "forking the language=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> cannot be satisfied. Since gcc=E2=80=99s uninitialized variables = analysis is applied quite late. >>=20 >> So, we have to add this new phase after = =E2=80=9Cpass_late_warn_uninitialized=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> I'd do >> the actual zeroing during RTL expansion instead since otherwise you >> have to figure youself whether a local is actually used (see = expand_stack_vars) >>=20 >>=20 >> Adding this new transformation during RTL expansion is okay. I will = check on this in more details to see how to add it to RTL expansion = phase. >>=20 >>=20 >> Note that optimization will already made have use of "uninitialized" = state >> of locals so depending on what the actual goal is here "late" may be = too late. >>=20 >>=20 >> This is a really good point=E2=80=A6 >>=20 >> In order to avoid optimization to use the =E2=80=9Cuninitialized=E2=80= =9D state of locals, we should add the zeroing phase as early as = possible (adding it in FE might be best >> for this issue). However, if we have to met the following = requirement: >=20 > So is optimization supposed to pick up zero or is it supposed to act > as if the initializer > is unknown? >=20 >> C. The implementation needs to keep the current static warning on = uninitialized >> variables untouched in order to avoid "forking the language=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> We have to move the new phase after all the uninitialized analysis is = done in order to avoid =E2=80=9Cforking the language=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> So, this is a problem that is not easy to resolve. >=20 > Indeed, those are conflicting goals. >=20 >> Do you have suggestion on this? >=20 > No, not any easy ones. Doing more of the uninit analysis early (there > is already an early > uninit pass) which would mean doing IPA analysis turing GCC into more > of a static analysis > tool. Theres the analyzer now, not sure if that can employ an early > LTO phase for example. >=20 > Richard.