[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

(no subject)

(Apologies for messing up the threading yet one more time, and for cluttering up the fedora thread with more stuff that is only semi- relevant here.)

Michael Eager wrote,

Compilers determine what modifications they can make to the code using
the inferences they make based on the data flow through a program. They don't say "well, this is undefined, we can muck it up however we like".

In the case of this *kernel* bug, the compiler determined that the pointer
must be valid, because it had been previously dereferenced.

Would it be entirely inappropriate to have a compiler switch that would cause the compiler to issue warnings when pointers are used without testing after being returned from functions calls?

This allowed
the compiler to eliminate a test which would always be false, *as long
as the behavior of the previous code was defined*.

Which is a problem, because the compiler authors are fully aware that dereferencing a pointer without testing is a common bug.

This code is correct and well defined as long as the pointer is valid.

Only if you can assume that the dereference after the function call and before any comparison must indicate that the programer knows the function will always return a valid pointer. Otherwise, the code, as it was, was not well defined.

The behavior only becomes undefined when the pointer is null. The only
way that the compiler could determine that the initial dereference of
the pointer was undefined would be to insert a test for null before the

That would be non-standard behavior, and potentially incorrect. And, if it could solve the problem, it would indicate that the dereference before testing could, and should have been flagged with a warning.

It would have to do this for every piece of code which
dereferenced a pointer which was passed into a function, dramatically
impacting performance.  Or perhaps it could issue a warning message
saying that it couldn't determine that the pointer was valid, resulting
in a warning that would occur thousands of times when compiling the

If this kind of code really occurs that often in the kernel, we have serious problems.

OK, what would reasonable, sane people do in that case? That's right,
they'd fall back on the behavior of just doing what the program source
code says, but no, gcc is too smart for that, gcc's undefined behavior
shows how smart it is and therefore makes much more sense than
doing the obvious :-).

You can get exactly that behavior by not optimizing your code.
Your code will run much slower, but that's OK, isn't it?

Ah, you want optimizations? But you want them to magically decide that
one is an error in the program and shouldn't be done, while in another
place the same optimization should be done because it generates better
code.  OK, write a description of how to determine one case from the
other and I'm sure every compiler developer will rush to implement it.

Actually, it's fairly simple. The default warning option for discarding code should be to issue a warning about discarded code. Discarded code generally indicates that the programmer did not say what he meant, and that is usually a no-no in kernels.

And, IMNSHO, in any other application, the programer should be required to insist that discarded code can safely be ignored, via pragma or switch.

Yeah, this sort of debate would be more appropriate in the compiler developers' mailing list. I feel like letting a little steam off, and I don't feel like signing up for yet another mailing list. So sue me.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]