On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:11:05PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > 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'. What do you mean by that? At this point in the program, a is the variable whose value is stored in r1 and b is the variable whose value is stored in r3. "mov r3, r1" copies the value from r1 into r3 and is therefore equivalent to executing "b = a". (That is why I said one could argue that the "return *b" statement uses the value of *a.) Thus it very much does have something 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. What output are you referring to? Does OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAR() have an output? If it does, the source program above ignores it, discarding any returned value. > There doesn't seem to be a later optimisation path to remove > 'pointless' register moves. That would be a good thing to add, then. Alan