----- On May 25, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > * Mathieu Desnoyers: > >> The larger question here is: considering that we re-implement the entire >> uapi header within glibc (which includes the uptr addition), do we still >> care about using the header provided by the Linux kernel ? > > We don't care, but our users do. Eventually, they want to include > <sys/rseq.h> and <linux/rseq.h> to get new constants that are not yet > known to glibc. Good point! > >> Having different definitions depending on whether a kernel header is >> installed or not when including a glibc header seems rather unexpected. > > Indeed. > >> *If* we want to use the uapi header, I think something is semantically >> missing. Here is the scheme I envision. We could rely on the kernel header >> version.h to figure out which of glibc or kernel uapi header is more >> recent. Any new concept we try to integrate into glibc (e.g. uptr) >> should go into the upstream Linux uapi header first. > > I think we should always prefer the uapi header. The Linux version > check does not tell you anything about backports. Fair enough. > >> For the coming glibc e.g. 2.32, we use the kernel uapi header if >> kernel version is >= 4.18.0. Within glibc, the fallback implements >> exactly the API exposed by the kernel rseq.h header. > > Agreed. > >> As we eventually introduce the uptr change into the Linux kernel, and >> say it gets merged for Linux 5.9.0, we mirror this change into glibc >> (e.g. release 2.33), and bump the Linux kernel version cutoff to 5.9.0. >> So starting from that version, we use the Linux kernel header only if >> version >= 5.9.0, else we fallback on glibc's own implementation. > > Fortunately, we don't need to settle this today. 8-) > > Let's stick to the 4.18 definitions for the fallback for now, and > discuss the incorporation of future changes later. OK > >>>> +/* Ensure the compiler supports __attribute__ ((aligned)). */ >>>> +_Static_assert (__alignof__ (struct rseq_cs) >= 32, "alignment"); >>>> +_Static_assert (__alignof__ (struct rseq) >= 32, "alignment"); >>> >>> This needs #ifndef __cplusplus or something like that. I'm surprised >>> that this passes the installed header tests. >> >> Would the following be ok ? >> >> #ifdef __cplusplus >> #define rseq_static_assert static_assert >> #else >> #define rseq_static_assert _Static_assert >> #endif >> >> /* Ensure the compiler supports __attribute__ ((aligned)). */ >> rseq_static_assert (__alignof__ (struct rseq_cs) >= 32, "alignment"); >> rseq_static_assert (__alignof__ (struct rseq) >= 32, "alignment"); > > Seems reasonable, yes. __alignof__ is still a GCC extension. C++11 has > alignof, C11 has _Alignof. So you could use something like this > (perhaps without indentation for the kernel header version): > > #ifdef __cplusplus > # if __cplusplus >= 201103L > # define rseq_static_assert(x) static_assert x; > # define rseq_alignof alignof > # endif > #elif __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L > # define rseq_static_assert(x) _Static_assert x; > # define rseq_alignof _Alignof > #endif > #ifndef rseq_static_assert > # define rseq_static_assert /* nothing */ > #endif > rseq_static_assert ((rseq_alignof__ (struct rseq_cs) >= 32, "alignment")) > rseq_static_assert ((rseq_alignof (struct rseq) >= 32, "alignment")) Something like this ? #ifdef __cplusplus # if __cplusplus >= 201103L # define rseq_static_assert (expr, diagnostic) static_assert (expr, diagnostic) # define rseq_alignof alignof # endif #elif __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L # define rseq_static_assert (expr, diagnostic) _Static_assert (expr, diagnostic) # define rseq_alignof _Alignof #endif #ifndef rseq_static_assert # define rseq_static_assert (expr, diagnostic) /* nothing */ #endif /* Ensure the compiler supports __attribute__ ((aligned)). */ rseq_static_assert ((rseq_alignof (struct rseq_cs) >= 32, "alignment")); rseq_static_assert ((rseq_alignof (struct rseq) >= 32, "alignment")); > And something similar for _Alignas/attribute aligned, I don't see where _Alignas is needed here ? For attribute aligned, what would be the oldest supported C and C++ standards ? > with an error for > older standards and !__GNUC__ compilers (because neither the type nor > __thread can be represented there). By "type" you mean "struct rseq" here ? What does it contain that requires a __GNUC__ compiler ? About __thread, I recall other compilers have other means to declare it. In liburcu, I end up with the following: #if defined (__cplusplus) && (__cplusplus >= 201103L) # define URCU_TLS_STORAGE_CLASS thread_local #elif defined (__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L) # define URCU_TLS_STORAGE_CLASS _Thread_local #elif defined (_MSC_VER) # define URCU_TLS_STORAGE_CLASS __declspec(thread) #else # define URCU_TLS_STORAGE_CLASS __thread #endif Would something along those lines be OK for libc ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
