public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Law <>
To: Jan Hubicka <>
Cc: Richard Biener <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve DSE to handle stores before __builtin_unreachable ()
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:24:10 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZJRPyeuKxXHfI/>

On 6/22/23 07:42, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 6/22/23 00:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I think there's a difference in that __builtin_trap () is observable
>>> while __builtin_unreachable () is not and reaching __builtin_unreachable
>>> () invokes undefined behavior while reaching __builtin_trap () does not.
>>> So the isolation code marking the trapping code volatile should be
>>> enough and the trap () is just there to end the basic block
>>> (and maybe be on the safe side to really trap).
>> Agreed WRT observability -- but that's not really the point of the trap and
>> if we wanted we could change that behavior.
>> The trap is there to halt execution immediately rather than letting it keep
>> running.  That was a design decision from a security standpoint. If we've
>> detected that we're executing undefined behavior, stop rather than
>> potentially letting a malicious actor turn a bug into an exploit.
> Also as discussed some time ago, the volatile loads between traps has
> effect of turning previously pure/const functions into non-const which
> is somewhat sad, so it is still on my todo list to change it this stage1
> to something more careful.   We discussed internal functions trap_store
> and trap_load which will expand to load/store + trap but will make it
> clear that side effect does not count to modref.
It's been a long time since I looked at this code -- isn't it the case 
that we already must have had a load/store and that all we've done is 
change its form (to enable more DCE) and added the volatile marker?

Meaning that it couldn't have been pure/cost before, could it?  Or is it 
the case that you want to not have the erroneous path be the sole reason 
to spoil pure/const detection -- does that happen often in practice?


  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-24 14:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
2023-06-20 13:27 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-21  6:41   ` Richard Biener
2023-06-21  9:55     ` Jan Hubicka
2023-06-21 14:04     ` Jeff Law
2023-06-22  6:31       ` Richard Biener
2023-06-22 13:36         ` Jeff Law
2023-06-22 13:42           ` Jan Hubicka
2023-06-24 14:24             ` Jeff Law [this message]
2023-06-25 16:33               ` Jan Hubicka
2023-06-26 17:21   ` Jan Hubicka
2023-06-26 22:37     ` Jeff Law
2023-06-20  6:59 Richard Biener

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).