On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:12:48PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > 2017-11-03 22:03 GMT+08:00 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:33:48PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > >> Thanks Paul, > >> > >> 2017-11-03 20:27 GMT+08:00 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:54:15AM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > >> >> Does anyone have any idea why this thread > >> >> > >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/25/270 > >> > > >> > Hmmm... This is quite the blast from the past. Compilers have changed > >> > a bit in the last 14 years. Nevertheles... > >> > >> Unfortunately I got several old servers with GCC 3.x so I have to keep > >> an eye on these things (and worse, I am one of those guys who like to > >> home-brew some locking primitives...) > >> > >> >> is related to strict-aliasing? To me, a compiler barrier like this will fix it: > >> >> > >> >> if((stream + event_len) < ends) { > >> >> iwe->len = event_len; > >> >> barrier(); > >> >> memcpy(stream, (char *) iwe, event_len); > >> >> stream += event_len; > >> >> } > >> > > >> > As with many bugs, there are a number of ways to fix this one. I suggest taking > >> > a look at the documentation for -no-strict-alias. This stackoverflow URL might > >> > not be a bad place to start: > >> > > >> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23848188/strict-aliasing-rule-and-char-pointers > >> > >> Basically I understand what aliasing means (for the C/C++ Languages) > >> and I know what a strict aliasing rule it is. I just cannot see why a > >> strict aliasing rule will cause this reordering problem... > > > > OK. Then please tell me why exactly you believe that strict aliasing does > > not allow the compiler to reverse the order of the first two statements > > in the body of the above "if" statement. > > Indeed, the compiler is free to reorder those two statements and > strict aliasing does not prevent the compiler from doing so. But, from > my perspective, this reordering issue might just come from some other > optimization rules (so we have to use barrier()), not because of the > strict aliasing rule. > > Hmm... am I missing anything? When you tell gcc -no-strict-aliasing (which is a non-standard extension, not part of the C language), the compiler is required to allow for the fact that two pointers of different types might well reference the same location(s). In this case, the compiler cannot reverse the statements, just as it would not be allowed to reverse the order of equivalent non-pointer statements. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
