Re: [PATCH 0/4] -ffreestanding/-fno-builtin-* patches

[Arvind Sankar]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:54:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This one is slightly different from the previous one. The first case is
> > really a call to __builtin_free().
> 
> No, the first case is a disgrace and a compiler bug.
> 
> We've had a situation where gcc complained about a static function
> called "free()", without any header file inclusion, and then
> complained about it not matching its idea of what "free()" is.
> 
> Which is pure and utter garbage.
> 
> It's like you have a local variable "int free", and the compiler says
> "hey, this doesn't match the prototype that I know this name should
> have". It's BS. You just saw the user not just *use* that name, but
> *define* it, and do it in a scope where the complaint is irrelevant
> and stupid, and when we hadn't even included the header that would
> have resulted in conflicts.
> 
> IOW, it's an example of a compiler that thinks "it knows better".
> 
> It's a broken compiler. And it's an example of the kind of breakage
> that compilers absolutely shouldn't do.

That's -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch, and can be turned off, and it
won't warn if you have -fno-builtin-free. I don't completely agree with
you, though warning for static functions is a bit overzealous. For an
external function, especially something more obscure like stpcpy(), I
appreciate the warning.

> 
> The second example is from clang doesn't something horribly horribly stupid.

Calm down man :)

> 
> > This one is turning something that wasn't a function call into
> > __builtin_bzero(), and I would hope that no-builtin-bzero would stop it
> > as well. OTOH, the compiler is free to turn it into memset(), just like
> > it could for structure/array initializers.
> 
> The whole "the compiler is free to do X" argument is pure BS. Stop
> repeating that bogus argument.
> 
> Of COURSE a compiler can do whatever the hell it wants.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that certain things are broken beyond
> words and utterly stupid, and a compiler that does them is a *BAD*
> compiler.
> 
> Turning four stores into a memset() is garbage. Just admit it, instead
> of trying to say that it's allowed.
> 

Look, four stores into memset(), yeah that's a bit weird. I didn't think
you meant "four" literally. But in any case, that has nothing to do with
the topic at hand. It would be just as bad if it was a 16-byte structure
being initialized with an out-of-line memset() call.

But coming back to the actual topic: it is fine if the compiler turns
four stores into __builtin_memset(). A size-16 or -32 __builtin_memset()
will get inlined anyway. There's a lot of garbage here if you look
closely: check out what gcc does to initialize a 7-character array with
zeros at -Os.