From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
To: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>, Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.arch/i386-avx.exp with clang
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 13:54:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1104add7-1cb0-efa1-f58a-c2d21846c5dc@palves.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a98d0ce-b473-7a44-f399-3a604a5b2516@suse.de>
On 2021-11-05 13:35, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 11/5/21 2:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 2021-11-05 13:15, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 11/5/21 1:55 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-05 12:23, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No, but in gdb/testsuite/lib/attribute.h we do setup a compatibility
>>>>>> macro for 'noclone', so there's definitely precedent for using
>>>>>> attributes that might not be supported everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, I'm aware of this, but that's a typical case where we have no
>>>>> portable alternative.
>>>>
>>>> We actually do -- _Alignas is standard C11. This fixes the test as well:
>>>>
>>>> _Alignas(32) v8sf_t data[] =
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was referring to the noclone, but ok, I was not aware of the _Alignas,
>>> good to know, thanks.
>>>
>>> Anyway, in the latest version this is not relevant anymore, since the
>>> precise alignment implementation has an extra benefit, as explained in
>>> the post.
>>>
>>
>> OOC, is that benefit important here?
>>
>
> So, this is the post I mentioned (
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-November/183183.html ).
>
> Well, the benefit is that it prevents accidental overalignment, which is
> the reason that this problem escaped detection and/or fixing for so long.
>
> Without that, I could do a thinko and specify too small an alignment and
> have the test passing accidentally, only to fail in a different setup.
>
The code made no effort at all to align the object, which is I think the main reason
why it went missed. As soon as you write some explicit alignment, I don't think
that your proposal helps that much. The new allocator won't help _finding_ the places
that miss alignment directives. I'm honestly not finding the benefit compelling enough to
justify the complication, compared to using alignas/_Alignas, which is what actual user
code will be using. My .2c, anyhow.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-05 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-04 13:55 Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 9:33 ` Andrew Burgess
2021-11-05 9:43 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 11:54 ` Andrew Burgess
2021-11-05 12:23 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 12:55 ` Pedro Alves
2021-11-05 13:15 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 13:20 ` Pedro Alves
2021-11-05 13:35 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 13:52 ` Andrew Burgess
2021-12-06 15:27 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 13:54 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2021-12-06 15:25 ` Tom de Vries
2021-11-05 12:24 ` Pedro Alves
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=1104add7-1cb0-efa1-f58a-c2d21846c5dc@palves.net \
--to=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/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).