From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com>
Cc: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>,
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: How to traverse all the local variables that declared in the current routine?
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:23:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc2=47bUM1OpD_anSGnnj-ZgGAqVffq57XyAr4iq8uLPgA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9585CBB2-0082-4B9A-AC75-250F54F0797C@ORACLE.COM>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:54 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 1:40 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:20 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2020, at 1:12 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:19 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2020, at 2:50 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:33 PM Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:47 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Another issue is, in order to check whether an auto-variable has initializer, I plan to add a new bit in “decl_common” as:
> /* In a VAR_DECL, this is DECL_IS_INITIALIZED. */
> unsigned decl_is_initialized :1;
>
> /* 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)
>
> set this bit when setting DECL_INITIAL for the variables in FE. then keep it
> even though DECL_INITIAL might be NULLed.
>
>
> For locals it would be more reliable to set this flag during gimplification.
>
> Do you have any comment and suggestions?
>
>
> As said above - do you want to cover registers as well as locals? 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)
>
> 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.
>
>
> Haven't thought about this much, so it might be a daft idea, but would a
> compromise be to use a const internal function:
>
> X1 = .DEFERRED_INIT (X0, INIT)
>
> where the X0 argument is an uninitialised value and the INIT argument
> describes the initialisation pattern? So for a decl we'd have:
>
> X = .DEFERRED_INIT (X, INIT)
>
> and for an SSA name we'd have:
>
> X_2 = .DEFERRED_INIT (X_1(D), INIT)
>
> with all other uses of X_1(D) being replaced by X_2. The idea is that:
>
> * Having the X0 argument would keep the uninitialised use of the
> variable around for the later warning passes.
>
> * Using a const function should still allow the UB to be deleted as dead
> if X1 isn't needed.
>
> * Having a function in the way should stop passes from taking advantage
> of direct uninitialised uses for optimisation.
>
> This means we won't be able to optimise based on the actual init
> value at the gimple level, but that seems like a fair trade-off.
> AIUI this is really a security feature or anti-UB hardening feature
> (in the sense that users are more likely to see predictable behaviour
> “in the field” even if the program has UB).
>
>
> The question is whether it's in line of peoples expectation that
> explicitely zero-initialized code behaves differently from
> implicitely zero-initialized code with respect to optimization
> and secondary side-effects (late diagnostics, latent bugs, etc.).
>
> Introducing a new concept like .DEFERRED_INIT is much more
> heavy-weight than an explicit zero initializer.
>
>
> What exactly you mean by “heavy-weight”? More difficult to implement or much more run-time overhead or both? Or something else?
>
> The major benefit of the approach of “.DEFERRED_INIT” is to enable us keep the current -Wuninitialized analysis untouched and also pass
> the “uninitialized” info from source code level to “pass_expand”.
>
>
> Well, "untouched" is a bit oversimplified. You do need to handle
> .DEFERRED_INIT as not
> being an initialization which will definitely get interesting.
>
>
> Yes, during uninitialized variable analysis pass, we should specially handle the defs with “.DEFERRED_INIT”, to treat them as uninitializations.
>
> If we want to keep the current -Wuninitialized analysis untouched, this is a quite reasonable approach.
>
> However, if it’s not required to keep the current -Wuninitialized analysis untouched, adding zero-initializer directly during gimplification should
> be much easier and simpler, and also smaller run-time overhead.
>
>
> As for optimization I fear you'll get a load of redundant zero-init
> actually emitted if you can just rely on RTL DSE/DCE to remove it.
>
>
> Runtime overhead for -fauto-init=zero is one important consideration for the whole feature, we should minimize the runtime overhead for zero
> Initialization since it will be used in production build.
> We can do some run-time performance evaluation when we have an implementation ready.
>
>
> Note there will be other passes "confused" by .DEFERRED_INIT. Note
> that there's going to be other
> considerations - namely where to emit the .DEFERRED_INIT - when
> emitting it during gimplification
> you can emit it at the start of the block of block-scope variables.
> When emitting after gimplification
> you have to emit at function start which will probably make stack slot
> sharing inefficient because
> the deferred init will cause overlapping lifetimes. With emitting at
> block boundary the .DEFERRED_INIT
> will act as code-motion barrier (and it itself likely cannot be moved)
> so for example invariant motion
> will no longer happen. Likewise optimizations like SRA will be
> confused by .DEFERRED_INIT which
> again will lead to bigger stack usage (and less optimization).
>
>
> Yes, looks like that the inserted “.DEFERRED_INIT” function calls will negatively impact tree optimizations.
>
>
> But sure, you can try implement a few variants but definitely
> .DEFERRED_INIT will be the most
> work.
>
>
> How about implement the following two approaches and compare the run-time cost:
>
> A. Insert the real initialization during gimplification phase.
> B. Insert the .DEFERRED_INIT during gimplification phase, and then expand this call to real initialization during expand phase.
>
> The Approach A will have less run-time overhead, but will mess up the current uninitialized variable analysis in GCC.
> The Approach B will have more run-time overhead, but will keep the current uninitialized variable analysis in GCC.
>
> And then decide which approach we will go with?
>
> What’s your opinion on this?
>
>
> Well, in the end you have to try. Note for the purpose of stack slot
> sharing you do want the
> instrumentation to happen during gimplification.
>
> Another possibility is to materialize .DEFERRED_INIT earlier than
> expand, for example shortly
> after IPA optimizations to avoid pessimizing loop transforms and allow
> SRA. At the point you
> materialize the inits you could run the late uninit warning pass
> (which would then be earlier
> than regular but would still see the .DEFERRED_INIT).
>
>
> If we put the “materializing .DEFERRED_INIT” phase earlier as you suggested above,
> the late uninitialized warning pass has to be moved earlier in order to utilize the “.DEFERRED_INIT”.
> Then we might miss some opportunities for the late uninitialized warning. I think that this is not we really
> want.
>
>
> While users may be happy to pay some performance stack usage is
> probably more critical
>
>
> So, which pass is for computing the stack usage?
There is no pass doing that, stack slot assignment and sharing (when
lifetimes do
not overlap) is done by RTL expansion.
> (just thinking of the kernel) so not regressing there should be as
> important as preserving
> uninit warnings (which I for practical purposes see not important at
> all - people can do
> "debug" builds without -fzero-init).
>
>
> Looks like that the major issue with the “.DERERRED_INIT” approach is: the new inserted calls to internal const function
> might inhibit some important tree optimizations.
>
> So, I am thinking again the following another approach I raised in the very beginning:
>
> During gimplification phase, mark the DECL for an auto variable without initialization as “no_explicit_init”, then maintain this
> “no_explicit_init” bit till after pass_late_warn_uninitialized, or till pass_expand, add zero-iniitiazation for all DECLs that are
> marked with “no_explicit_init”.
>
> This approach will not have the issue to interrupt tree optimizations, however, I guess that “maintaining this “no_explicit_init” bit
> might be very difficult?
>
> Do you have any comments on this approach?
As said earlier you'll still get optimistic propagation bypassing the
still missing
implicit zero init. Maybe that's OK - you don't get "garbage" but you'll get
some other defined value.
As said, you have to implement a few options and compare.
Richard.
> thanks.
>
> Qing
>
>
>
> Richard.
>
>
> Btw, I don't think theres any reason to cling onto clangs semantics
> for a particular switch. We'll never be able to emulate 1:1 behavior
> and our -Wuninit behavior is probably wastly different already.
>
>
> From my study so far, yes, the currently behavior of -Wunit for Clang and GCC is not exactly the same.
>
> For example, for the following small testing case:
> void blah(int);
>
> int foo_2 (int n, int l, int m, int r)
> {
> int v;
>
> if ( (n > 10) && (m != 100) && (r < 20) )
> v = r;
>
> if (l > 100)
> if ( (n <= 8) && (m < 102) && (r < 19) )
> blah(v); /* { dg-warning "uninitialized" "real warning" } */
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> GCC is able to report maybe uninitialized warning, but Clang cannot.
> Looks like that GCC’s uninitialized analysis relies on more analysis and optimization information than CLANG.
>
> Really curious on how clang implement its uninitialized analysis?
>
>
>
> Actually, I studied a little bit on how clang implement its uninitialized analysis last Friday.
> And noticed that CLANG has a data flow analysis phase based on CLANG's AST.
> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/A-survey-of-dataflow-analyses-in-Clang-td4069644.html
>
> And clang’s uninitialized analysis is based on this data flow analysis.
>
> Therefore, adding initialization AFTER clang’s uninitialization analysis phase is straightforward.
>
> However, for GCC, we don’t have data flow analysis in FE. The uninitialized variable analysis is put in TREE optimization phase,
> Therefore, it’s much more difficult to implement this feature in GCC than that in CLANG.
>
> Qing
>
>
>
> Qing
>
>
>
>
> Richard.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-09 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-23 23:05 Qing Zhao
2020-11-24 7:32 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-24 15:47 ` Qing Zhao
2020-11-24 15:55 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-24 16:54 ` Qing Zhao
2020-11-25 9:11 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-25 17:41 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-01 19:47 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-02 8:45 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-02 15:36 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-03 8:45 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-03 16:07 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-03 16:36 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-03 16:40 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-03 16:56 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-11-26 0:08 ` Martin Sebor
2020-11-30 16:23 ` Qing Zhao
2020-11-30 17:18 ` Martin Sebor
2020-11-30 23:05 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-03 17:32 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-12-03 23:04 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-04 8:50 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-04 16:19 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-07 7:12 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-07 16:20 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-07 17:10 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-12-07 17:36 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-07 18:05 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-12-07 18:34 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-08 7:35 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-08 7:40 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-08 19:54 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-09 8:23 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2020-12-09 15:04 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-09 15:12 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-09 16:18 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-05 19:05 ` The performance data for two different implementation of new security feature -ftrivial-auto-var-init Qing Zhao
2021-01-05 19:10 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-12 20:34 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-13 7:39 ` Richard Biener
2021-01-13 15:06 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-13 15:10 ` Richard Biener
2021-01-13 15:35 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-13 15:40 ` Richard Biener
2021-01-14 21:16 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-15 8:11 ` Richard Biener
2021-01-15 16:16 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-15 17:22 ` Richard Biener
2021-01-15 17:57 ` Qing Zhao
2021-01-18 13:09 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-01-18 16:12 ` Qing Zhao
2021-02-01 19:12 ` Qing Zhao
2021-02-02 7:43 ` Richard Biener
2021-02-02 15:17 ` Qing Zhao
2021-02-02 23:32 ` Qing Zhao
2020-12-07 17:21 ` How to traverse all the local variables that declared in the current routine? Richard Sandiford
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='CAFiYyc2=47bUM1OpD_anSGnnj-ZgGAqVffq57XyAr4iq8uLPgA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=QING.ZHAO@oracle.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.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).