From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
To: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] explicit_bzero-tests: pacify GCC
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 18:17:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d3aed6a-e6f5-e5cb-373a-d5dec068ea0b@cs.ucla.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2568272.mkVSEl9qYJ@omega>
On 7/18/21 5:23 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Such compiler optimizations would need to be backed by the standards.
> Are there initiatives to "outlaw" references to uninitialized storage
> in recent C or C++ standards?
No initiatives are needed, at least for C. Using uninitialized storage
is undefined behavior in the current C standard and this has been true
ever since C was standardized. I imagine C++ is similar.
>
> I hope code such as
>
> int x; /* uninitialized */
> if (!((x & 1) == 0 || (x & 1) == 1))
> abort ();
>
> will never crash. x & 1 can only be 0 or 1. Tertium not datur.
The C standard doesn't guarantee that code will never crash. For
example, the standard allows an implementation that uses two's
complement but where INT_MIN == -INT_MAX and where the bit pattern
0x80000000 is a trap value (i.e., your program aborts if it reads an int
whose machine value is 0x80000000).
> GCC does not _know_ that the array
> is uninitialized. It's only a "maybe uninitialized".
That's what GCC's diagnostic says, yes. But in cases like these GCC
actually "knows" that variables are uninitialized and it sometimes
optimizes based on this knowledge. For example, for:
_Bool f (void) { char *p; return !p; }
gcc -O2 (GCC 11.1.1 20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3)) "knows" that P is
uninitialized and generates code equivalent to that of:
_Bool f (void) { return 1; }
That is, GCC optimizes away the access to p's value, which GCC can do
because the behavior is undefined.
> If GCC ever
> infers that it is "certainly uninitialized", we could defeat that
> through a use of 'volatile', such as
Yes, some use of volatile should do the trick for GCC (which is what my
patch did). However, one would still have problems with a debugging
implementation, e.g., if GCC ever supports an -fsanitize=uninitialized
option that catches use of uninitialized storage.
This is all low priority of course.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-18 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-18 4:56 [PATCH 1/2] explicit_bzero-tests: pacify GCC Paul Eggert
2021-07-18 4:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] memrchr-tests: " Paul Eggert
2021-07-18 9:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] explicit_bzero-tests: " Bruno Haible
2021-07-18 19:14 ` Paul Eggert
2021-07-18 22:23 ` Bruno Haible
2021-07-18 23:17 ` Paul Eggert [this message]
2021-07-19 0:37 ` Bruno Haible
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
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7d3aed6a-e6f5-e5cb-373a-d5dec068ea0b@cs.ucla.edu \
--to=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
/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).