From: Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: reordering of trapping operations and volatile
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:21:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2669ee993cbb2c694de24f4f8424b5c418a7b334.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1pqAepV8WUffQHDk5z-xj7Jmd7gg5Kzs5+N4ck=eXqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Am Dienstag, den 18.01.2022, 09:31 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:11 PM Michael Matz via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > > > Because it interferes with existing optimisations. An explicit
> > > > checkpoint has a clear meaning. Using every volatile access that way
> > > > will hurt performance of code that doesn't require that behaviour for
> > > > correctness.
> > >
> > > This is why I would like to understand better what real use cases of
> > > performance sensitive code actually make use of volatile and are
> > > negatively affected. Then one could discuss the tradeoffs.
> >
> > But you seem to ignore whatever we say in this thread. There are now
> > multiple examples that demonstrate problems with your proposal as imagined
> > (for lack of a _concrete_ proposal with wording from you), problems that
> > don't involve volatile at all. They all stem from the fact that you order
> > UB with respect to all side effects (because you haven't said how you want
> > to avoid such total ordering with all side effects).
Again, this is simply not what I am proposing. I don't
want to order UB with all side effects.
You are right, there is not yet a specific proposal. But
at the moment I simply wanted to understand the impact of
reordering traps and volatile.
> > As I said upthread: you need to define a concept of time at whose
> > granularity you want to limit the effects of UB, and the borders of each
> > time step can't simply be (all) the existing side effects. Then you need
> > to have wording of what it means for UB to occur within such time step, in
> > particular if multiple UB happens within one (for best results it should
> > simply be UB, not individual instances of different UBs).
> >
> > If you look at the C++ proposal (thanks Jonathan) I think you will find
> > that if you replace 'std::observable' with 'sequence point containing a
> > volatile access' that you basically end up with what you wanted. The
> > crucial point being that the time steps (epochs in that proposal) aren't
> > defined by all side effects but by a specific and explicit thing only (new
> > function in the proposal, volatile accesses in an alternative).
> >
> > FWIW: I think for a new language feature reusing volatile accesses as the
> > clock ticks are the worse choice: if you intend that feature to be used
> > for writing safer programs (a reasonable thing) I think being explicit and
> > at the same time null-overhead is better (i.e. a new internal
> > function/keyword/builtin, specified to have no effects except moving the
> > clock forward). volatile accesses obviously already exist and hence are
> > easier to integrate into the standard, but in a given new/safe program,
> > whenever you see a volatile access you would always need to ask 'is thise
> > for clock ticks, or is it a "real" volatile access for memmap IO'.
>
> I guess Martin want's to have accesses to volatiles handled the same as
> function calls where we do not know whether the function call will return
> or terminate the program normally. As if the volatile access could have
> a similar effect (it might actually reboot the machine or so - but of course
> that and anything else I can imagine would be far from "normal termination
> of the program"). That's technically possible to implement with a yet unknown
> amount of work.
Yes. thanks! Semantically this is equivalent to what I want.
> Btw, I'm not sure we all agree that (*) in the following program doesn't make
> it invoke UB and thus the compiler is not free to re-order the
> offending statement
> to before the exit (0) call. Thus UB is only "realized" if a stmt
> containing it is
> executed in the abstract machine.
>
> int main()
> {
> exit(0);
> 1 / 0; /// (*)
> }
Yes, this not clear although there seems to be some
understanding there is a difference between
compile-time UB and run-time UB and I think the
standard should make it clear what is what.
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-21 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-08 8:32 Martin Uecker
2022-01-08 12:41 ` Richard Biener
2022-01-08 13:50 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-08 14:13 ` Marc Glisse
2022-01-08 14:41 ` Eric Botcazou
2022-01-08 15:27 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-08 17:33 ` Eric Botcazou
2022-01-08 15:03 ` David Brown
2022-01-08 16:42 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-08 18:35 ` Andrew Pinski
2022-01-08 21:07 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-10 9:04 ` Richard Biener
2022-01-10 17:36 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-11 7:11 ` Richard Biener
2022-01-11 8:17 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-11 9:13 ` Richard Biener
2022-01-11 20:01 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-13 16:45 ` Michael Matz
2022-01-13 19:17 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-14 14:15 ` Michael Matz
2022-01-14 14:58 ` Paul Koning
2022-01-15 21:28 ` Martin Sebor
2022-01-15 21:38 ` Paul Koning
2022-01-16 12:37 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-14 15:46 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-14 19:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-01-15 9:00 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-15 16:33 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-01-15 18:48 ` Martin Uecker
2022-01-17 14:10 ` Michael Matz
2022-01-18 8:31 ` Richard Biener
2022-01-21 16:21 ` Martin Uecker [this message]
2022-01-11 18:17 ` David Brown
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=2669ee993cbb2c694de24f4f8424b5c418a7b334.camel@gmail.com \
--to=ma.uecker@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--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).