From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
To: Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com>
Cc: "overseers@gcc.gnu.org" <overseers@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: gcc x64 linux code generation (passing pointer var-args) bug
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1=DM0imtQ25qZ3iWhvvABXProto9ZPjdaX5KP4uU3ZGkw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_8n+Q5Ac7AmmWaFMJe-4W+Zf1eROS85hb8WekMWuHhUsc1Cg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Overseers,
>
> I ran into an issue with all versions of gcc which support x64 which
> *could* be considered a bug. At the very least, it's a pitfall. I'm
> not really sure to whom I should bring this problem to. Bugzilla?
> Mailing list? Not sure...
It is not a bug because ...
>
> Anyway, the gist of the bug is this...
>
> printf("%p %p %p %p %p %p\n", 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
You are passing 32bit values where 64bit values are expected. If you
used -Wformat, it would have warned you about this issue.
>
> The first 5 zero ints are copied into the esi, edx, ecx, r8d and r9d,
> (as the linux x64 calling convention mandates) with the movl
> instruction. The movl instruction will zero out the upper 32-bits of
> those registers. The last zero int, however is copied to (%rsp) with
> movl, which does *not* zero out the upper 32 bits because (%rsp) is
> not a register, so the last 0 is not promoted to a 64-bit zero, but
> the rest of the zeros are. If I were to add another zero, that zero
> would be copied to 8(%rsp), so the upper 32-bits of (%rsp) are skipped
> and whatever garbage happens to be there is passed to the called
> function.
>
> printf("%p %p %p %p %p %p\n", 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, (void*)0);
>
> ...works because the (void*) causes gcc to emit a movq instruction.
>
> I'm wondering if there's a possibility to change this unexpected
> behavior in gcc such that it always uses movq on stack args.
it is not unexpected because the ABI says something different from
what you are trying to work with.
>
> I realize all the zeros are technically wrong, they should be either
> NULL or (void*) casts, but it's a huge pain that '0' works for the
> first 6 args, then doesn't on the 7th when the args start going on the
> stack.
So this is undefined in C and will never work on most other targets too.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Reuben Hawkins
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-23 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 21:36 Reuben Hawkins
2015-01-23 21:40 ` Andrew Pinski [this message]
2015-01-23 22:11 ` Reuben Hawkins
2015-01-24 22:28 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2015-01-24 22:52 ` Joseph Myers
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='CA+=Sn1=DM0imtQ25qZ3iWhvvABXProto9ZPjdaX5KP4uU3ZGkw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pinskia@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=overseers@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=reubenhwk@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).