This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [c++std-parallel-1614] Re: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more unto the breach!
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jens Maurer <Jens dot Maurer at gmx dot net>, c++std-parallel at accu dot org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, p796231 <Peter dot Sewell at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk>, "mark dot batty at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk" <Mark dot Batty at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel dot org>, michaelw at ca dot ibm dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 05:02:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: [c++std-parallel-1614] Re: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more unto the breach!
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150520005510 dot GA23559 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <CA+55aFy_8V-rbE9FQMHx6tXjj8HHKZuKSJvnRPVYvpk46EQA1g at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150520023402 dot GC6776 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <555C38F2 dot 7060402 at gmx dot net> <CAFiYyc2csMmcEJLRaoSExLkWGUw=zyL9L6i4VaNDyJ6H+rROYQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:03:00AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> - the "you can add/subtract integral values" still opens you up to
> >>> language lawyers claiming "(char *)ptr - (intptr_t)ptr" preserving the
> >>> dependency, which it clearly doesn't. But language-lawyering it does,
> >>> since all those operations (cast to pointer, cast to integer,
> >>> subtracting an integer) claim to be dependency-preserving operations.
> > [...]
> >> There are some stranger examples, such as "(char *)ptr - ((intptr_t)ptr)/7",
> >> but in that case, if the resulting pointer happens by chance to reference
> >> valid memory, I believe a dependency would still be carried.
> > [...]
> > From a language lawyer standpoint, pointer arithmetic is only valid
> > within an array. These examples seem to go beyond the bounds of the
> > array and therefore have undefined behavior.
> > C++ standard section 5.7 paragraph 4
> > "If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the
> > same array object, or one past the last element of the array object,
> > the evaluation shall not produce an overflow; otherwise, the behavior
> > is undefined."
> > C99 and C11
> > identical phrasing in 6.5.6 paragraph 8
> Of course you can try to circumvent that by doing
> (char*)((intptr_t)ptr - (intptr_t)ptr + (intptr_t)ptr)
> (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 for extra fun).
> Which (IMHO) gets you into the standard language that only makes conversion of
> the exact same integer back to a pointer well-defined(?)
I am feeling good about leaving the restriction and calling out
the two paragraphs in a footnote, then. ;-)