RE: [PATCH 1/2] compiler.h: Introduce ptr_eq() to preserve address dependency

[David Laight]

From: Alan Stern
> Sent: 30 September 2024 19:53
> 
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 07:05:06PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 9/30/2024 um 6:43 PM schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 01:26:53PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 9/28/2024 um 4:49 PM schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > >
> > > > I should also point out that it is not enough to prevent the compiler from
> > > > using @a instead of @b.
> > > >
> > > > It must also be prevented from assigning @b=@a, which it is often allowed to
> > > > do after finding @a==@b.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't that be a bug?
> >
> > That's why I said that it is often allowed to do it. In your case it
> > wouldn't, but it is often possible when a and b are non-atomic &
> > non-volatile (and haven't escaped, and I believe sometimes even then).
> >
> > It happens for example here with GCC 14.1.0 -O3:
> >
> > int fct_hide(void)
> > {
> >     int *a, *b;
> >
> >     do {
> >         a = READ_ONCE(p);
> >         asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
> >         b = READ_ONCE(p);
> >     } while (a != b);
> >     OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(b);
> >     return *b;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >         ldr     r1, [r2]
> >         ldr     r3, [r2]
> >         cmp     r1, r3
> >         bne     .L6
> >         mov     r3, r1   // nay...
> 
> A totally unnecessary instruction, which accomplishes nothing other than
> to waste time, space, and energy.  But nonetheless, allowed -- I agree.
> 
> The people in charge of GCC's optimizer might like to hear about this,
> if they're not already aware of it...
> 
> >         ldr     r0, [r3] // yay!
> >         bx      lr
> 
> One could argue that in this example the compiler _has_ used *a instead
> of *b.  However, such an argument would have more force if we had
> described what we are talking about more precisely.

The 'mov r3, r1' has nothing to do with 'a'.
It is a more general problem that OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAR() pretty much
always ends up allocating a different internal 'register' for the
output and then allocating a separate physical rehgister.

There doesn't seem to be a later optimisation path to remove
'pointless' register moves.

	David

> 
> Yes, we do want to prevent compilers from doing this.  I'm not sure that
> it really needs to be mentioned in the comments or commit description,
> though.
> 
> Alan

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)