On 12/09/2017 18:16, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2017 17:54, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>> I guess clang still eliminates dead branches. Clang optimizer does
>>>> know that these are constant, it just does not allow build
>>>> success/failure nor runtime behavior depend on optimization level and
>>>> compiler version. I.e. with gcc you can get build failure with only
>>>> some compiler flags and/or compiler versions. Clang gives stable
>>>> result. But the optimizer does use constant propagation, etc during
>>>> optimization.
>>
>> I can reproduce it:
>>
>> $ cat f.c
>> int bad_code();
>>
>> static inline void __attribute__((always_inline)) f(int x)
>> {
>> if (!__builtin_constant_p(x))
>> bad_code();
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> f(0);
>> f(1);
>> f(100);
>> }
>>
>> $ clang --version
>> clang version 4.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_400/final)
>> $ clang f.c -O2 -c -o f.o
>> $ nm f.o
>> U bad_code
>> 0000000000000000 T main
>>
>> $ gcc f.c -O2 -c -o f.o
>> $ nm f.o
>> 0000000000000000 T main
>>
>> ... but I don't know, it seems very weird. The purpose of
>> __builtin_constant_p is to be resolved only relatively late in the
>> optimization pipeline, and it has been like this for at least 15 years
>> in GCC.
>>
>> The docs say what to expect:
>>
>> You may use this built-in function in either a macro or an inline
>> function. However, if you use it in an inlined function and pass an
>> argument of the function as the argument to the built-in, GCC never
>> returns 1 when you call the inline function with a string constant or
>> compound literal (see Compound Literals) and does not return 1 when
>> you pass a constant numeric value to the inline function **unless you
>> specify the -O option**.
>>
>> (emphasis mine).
>
>
> Yes, I know. This difference was surprising for me and lots of other
> people as well. But this is a fundamental position for clang and is
> related to some implementation choices. Namely, C/C++ frontend needs
> to know values of compile-time const expressions in order to verify
> correctness and generate middle-end representation. But for gcc's
> meaning of __builtin_constant_p, its value only becomes known deep
> inside of middle-end. Which kinda creates a cycle. In gcc it's all
> somehow mixed together (front-end/middle-end) and somehow works. Can't
> possibly work for clang with strict separation between front-end and
> middle-end.
This is nonsense, GCC is also separating front-end and middle-end. The
front-end only ever produces a 0 value for __builtin_constant_p if an
integer constant expression is syntactically required.
When entering the middle-end a __builtin_constant_p with non-constant
argument is lowered to a builtin function when optimization is on, or 0
when optimization is off.
The middle-end knows about __builtin_constant_p and can fold it to 1
when the argument is a constant. At some point, GCC decides it's had
enough and changes all remaining calls to return 0. There's no reason
why LLVM couldn't have such a builtin.
> I proposed to introduce another builtin that returns a value that is
> constant from optimizer point of view (e.g. it can eliminate dead code
> on branches), but is not constant from language/front-end point of
> view (e.g. you can't declare a stack array using the value as size).
> It should do in such cases and should be implementable in clang. But
> we don't have it yet, and again it's not __builtin_constant_p, because
> gcc's __builtin_constant_p returns a compile-time constant.
I think this has to be fixed at the include/linux/ level. I'm okay with
warning instead of erroring, so maybe add WARN_IF_NONCONSTANT() and make
it do nothing (or live with the warning) on clang?
Paolo
