From: Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: reordering of trapping operations and volatile
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:01:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bacbe96676729ceafda1ec8077ec3206e4770d82.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3e+cO-TzxFbTVc451-hJ=n2e2=0Jj0ABGVjYePBkVuDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Am Dienstag, den 11.01.2022, 10:13 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:17 AM Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 11.01.2022, 08:11 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:36 PM Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Am Montag, den 10.01.2022, 10:04 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
...
> Consider
>
> int a[1024];
> void foo (volatile int *p, float *q)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> {
> *p = 1;
> a[i] = *q;
> }
> }
>
> we happily apply invariant motion to the load from *q, making
> it cross the store to the volatile object at *p. Now, q might be
> NULL upon entry to the function and thus this transform
> would violate the volatile "I/O" constraint (since I/O is observable)
> and thus we will crash (which is UB) before doing the first I/O.
>
> That's an example I'd consider important for performance and
> also a case that shows that usually the compiler will have a
> very hard time proving UB cannot happen (as opposed to the
> usual stance where it can assume it doesn't).
I can see that the transformation in general is important,
but why is it important if the "volatile" is there?
I would assume that performance-sensitive code usually
does not volatile.
Or in other words, what is the purpose of volatile in
this example if not either I/O or to prevent such
optimizations?
> The case we run into sth similar is with use of uninitialized
> variables where proving some variable is initialized is nearly
> impossible (copy initialization from a variable that is not
> initialized is not initialization).
These are the C++ rules.
For C, an automatic variables which is not initialized and
(as long as the address is not taken), it is directly UB.
> We've mainly settled to the stance that only program termination
> is observable which means if we do not know that a function
> call will always return normally we have to avoid hoisting
> observable UB across such function call (and I/O routines
> usually fall into this category because they are not annotated
> as always returning).
Yes.
> Handling all volatile accesses in the
> very same way would be possible but quite some work I don't
> see much value in.
I see some value.
But an alternative could be to remove volatile
from the observable behavior in the standard
or make it implementation-defined whether it
is observable or not.
Martin
> Richard.
>
> > Martin
> >
> > > > > > I am trying to figure out whether this is feasible.
> > > > >
> > > > > For PRE yes, you'd just need to include the observable stmts you
> > > > > care in the set of stmts that cause PRE to set BB_MAY_NOTRETURN.
> > > > > In general this is of course harder.
> > > >
> > > > What other passes would need to be checked?
> > >
> > > All that do code motion by design or by accident. The difficulty is
> > > that the resulting "wrong IL" is not wrong per se, just the difference is
> > > which is hard to write a checker for (well, in priciple you could copy the
> > > IL before passes and compare to the IL after)
> > >
> > > > And do you think there is any negative impact on
> > > > an important optimization (considering this affects
> > > > only volatile accesses)?
> > >
> > > Probably not. But then semantics of 'volatile' are very weak defined
> > > so I'd like
> > > to see a reference to a part of the standard that supports declaring this
> > > (and only this - the 'volatile' case) a bug.
> > >
> > > > > > > GCC assumes by default that divide is trappable but stores not are not
> > > > > > > observable. This is where -fnon-call-exceptions come into play.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, thanks! I will look at this!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the second case, GCC assumes reducing trappable instructions are
> > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -fnon-call-exceptions would treat trapping instructions
> > > > > > as defined (and trapping) instead of UB? This is
> > > > > > then probably even stronger than the requirement above.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't think it turns UB into defined behavior. Some frontends might
> > > > > expect that to some extent. So even with -fnon-call-exceptions we'd
> > > > > happily do the re-ordering unless the exception is catched in the same
> > > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > > > > Note I thought -fno-delete-dead-exceptions would fix the sink
> > > > > > > but it didn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-11 20:01 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 [this message]
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
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=bacbe96676729ceafda1ec8077ec3206e4770d82.camel@gmail.com \
--to=ma.uecker@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pinskia@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).