On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 05:00:23PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 08:23:02AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:07:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > Also, can you illustrate code that can only be unsafe with Clang LTO? > > > > I don't have a concrete example, but it's an ongoing concern over on the LTO > > thread [1], so I cooked this to show one way we could deal with it. The main > > concern is that the whole-program optimisations enabled by LTO may allow the > > compiler to enumerate possible values for a pointer at link time and replace > > an address dependency between two loads with a control dependency instead, > > defeating the dependency ordering within the CPU. > > Why can't that happen without LTO? It could, but I'd argue that it's considerably less likely because there is less information available to the compiler to perform these sorts of optimisations. It also doesn't appear to be happening in practice. The current state of affairs is that, if/when we catch the compiler performing harmful optimistations, we look for a way to disable them. However, there are good reasons to enable LTO, so this is one way to do that without having to worry about the potential impact on dependency ordering. Will _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
