From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>,
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] On the use of -funreachable-traps to deal with PR 109627
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:11:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZhTqEmjUWm2C6qPs@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3umOzD4fD+kN89uX73A7_AaU=gNbx0_v1mw53xex4Qsg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:03:59AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > With the possibility of sounding like a broken record, I think
> > __builtin_unreachable is fundamentally flawed. It generates no code
> > and just lets the program continue if ever "reached". This is a
> > security risk and (IMHO) just plain silly. We're in a situation that is
> > never supposed to happen, so continuing to execute code is just asking
> > for problems.
> >
> > If it were up to me, I'd have __builtin_unreachable emit a trap or
> > similar construct that should (in general) halt execution.
>
> __builtin_unreachable tells the compiler it's OK to omit a path to it
> while __builtin_trap doesn't. So once we replace the former with the
> latter we have to keep the path. Maybe that's OK. I do agree that
> the RTL representation of expanding __builtin_unreachable () to
> "nothing" is bad. Expanding to a trap always would be OK with me.
Even that would prevent tons of needed optimizations, especially the
reason why __builtin_unreachable () has been added in the first place
- for asm goto which always branches and so the kernel can put
__builtin_unreachable () after it to say that it won't fall through.
I think the kernel folks would be upset if we change that.
So, can't we instead just emit a trap when in the last cfglayout -> cfgrtl
switch we see that the last bb in the function doesn't have any successors?
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-09 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-08 23:04 Iain Sandoe
2024-04-08 23:11 ` Andrew Pinski
2024-04-09 4:03 ` Jeff Law
2024-04-09 7:03 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-09 7:11 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2024-04-09 7:44 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-09 7:48 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-04-09 7:53 ` Iain Sandoe
2024-04-09 13:59 ` Iain Sandoe
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=ZhTqEmjUWm2C6qPs@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=idsandoe@googlemail.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.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).