State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-Why: Because it has a non-trivial constructor.  This could 
    probably still be optimized, but it's up to the front end
    to tell us that; changed to category c++.

Suspending as this will take a major change in the C++ front-end.

*** Bug 22575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

hmm, i think someone should reopen this bug. 
4.1 is a good place for major changes in c++ front-end ;) 
 

(In reply to comment #4)
> hmm, i think someone should reopen this bug. 
> 4.1 is a good place for major changes in c++ front-end ;) 
Not any more since we are in stage3 already.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > hmm, i think someone should reopen this bug. 
> > 4.1 is a good place for major changes in c++ front-end ;) 
> Not any more since we are in stage3 already.

- given that 4.1's front end has already evolved from that in 2.95,
   it's not clear that a conclusion based on 2.95 is even valid for 4.1.
   (so should no likely assumed as being so).

Subject: Re:  Why the C++ compiler don't place a const class object to ".rodata" section?


On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:03 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:

> - given that 4.1's front end has already evolved from that in 2.95,
>    it's not clear that a conclusion based on 2.95 is even valid for 
> 4.1.
>    (so should no likely assumed as being so).

It still is true since the front-end still does exactly what it did in 
2.95 for
this testcase and there have been no changes in this area really.

Since the mainline is in stage3 which means no more improvements except 
for fixing
bugs which are either regressions or non enhancement bugs.

-- Pinski

It may be true that this bug isn't going to be fixed in this cycle, 
but there's no reason not to keep it open instead of suspending it. 
The "suspend" state is mean for PRs where we need external things to 
happen, such as a defect report to be accepted. This clearly isn't the 
case here. 
 
I'll close this PR and reopen 22575 instead. 
 
W. 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22575 ***

Reopening this bug since it is the correct one to keep open.

*** Bug 22575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Hi,

here is a much simpler test case for this issue.

Bjoern.



#include <complex>

using namespace std;

const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
complex<char> should_be_in_bss;

Trivially, one could use turing completeness at compile time to achieve the desired result.  :-)  Not that I think that is better than `fixing' this bug.

Here is a real reduced testcase:

struct f
{
  f(int a) { t = a; }
  int t;
}

const f(1);

-----

I had already a look at the code in the cp directory. Unfortunately the documentation of the c++ front-end seems to be still worse than the docs on the back-ends (i.e. RTL). Either it is virtually inexisting or, I didn't find any hint on where to find it.

Meanwhile I had a look at the tree dumps. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed in finding the initialization data for global "plain old built-in type" variables in the tree dumps. I have so far only seen the constructor code for initialization of class objects.


AI'd at least like to have an idea of the complexity of the task. I have the impression that it might be way to difficult for me myself. But at least I'd like to try my very best to fix it before giving up. 

So any hint on a starting point for code reading and analysis would be appreciated.

Bjoern.

I just realized that yesterday the subject line has been changed.

I'd like to suggest that this new subject line is mis-leading:

The compiler doesn't place ANY object in .rodata . It's not necessary to have
a "non-trivial" constructor.
E.g. have a look at the constructors of the complex class template. There isn't any statement in the constructor. There is only the initialization of the member POD for the real and imaginary parts.

If one changes the subject line, I think that 

"the compiler don't place any const class object to .rodata"

would be appropriate.

Bjoern.

Non trivial is the wording used by the C++ standard which is why I used it.  (it is also called user defined constructor).

I have made a superficial analysis of the issue and would like to discuss at
the end of this post a possible approach for resolving PR4131.

The first observation is, that when one is having a code segment like

/* Start */
#include <complex>
using namespace std;
typedef complex<int> ci;

ci fa [3] = {ci(1,2), ci(-1,-2), ci(-42,+42)};
/* End */

the gimple optimizers will yield a very simple code sequence like

/* Start of gimple code */
void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (__initialize_p, __priority)
{
<bb 2>:
  if (__initialize_p == 1) goto <L0>; else goto <L2>;

<L0>:;
  if (__priority == 65535) goto <L1>; else goto <L2>;

<L1>:;
  fa[0]._M_real = 1;
  fa[0]._M_imag = 2;
  fa[1]._M_real = -1;
  fa[1]._M_imag = -2;
  fa[2]._M_real = -42;
  fa[2]._M_imag = 42;

<L2>:;
  return;
}
/* End of gimple code */

for the constructor function. Namely, I think that there is hope that one would
grep the most important cases if one would try to replace
 some_direct_address_in_data_member = const_immediate_integer;
expressions in the constructors by storing the value in the .data initializers.
Namely, one would be placing the values in the initialization memory region and
one would be deleting the assignment expressions.
If at the end of this process, the constructor function would no longer contain
references to the data structure, "const" qualified VAR_DECL could even be
placed in ".rodata".

Thus, for fixing PR4131 I'd like to suggest to

1.) change the definition of the VAR_DECL so that DECL_INITIAL always points
    to a memory region holding initialization data. I.e. also for the case
    that we are having constructor code. Initially the memory region would
    be initialized to 0.
2.) In order to do this, one would need to replace the tests
    "DECL_INITIAL(decl) == error_mark_node" by tests against one of the unused
    flags in tree_decl_common that would be assigned a new meaning.
    E.g., one might take "decl_flag_0" which seems to be unused so far
    for VAR_DECL.? 
3.) One would then add a new tree optimiation pass that is located somewhere
    close to the end of tree optimization. There one would be looking for
    expressions like "static_direct_address = const_immediate_value" like
    in the sample gimple code above.
    One wold be inserting the values in the DECL_INITIAL(decl) memory region
    delete the corresponding expression statements in the constructor function.
    After making all the possible replacements, one would be re-visiting the 
    code of the constructor function.
    If within the constructor code more complex references to the VAR_DECL
    remain, that could not be removed easily, one would set one second flag
    in "tree_decl_common" that states that the VAR_DECL needs to reside in ram,
    even if it's a const object.
4.) In "var_asm.c" one would be checking if DECL_INITIAL(decl) is completely
    zero. In this case it would go into .bss. If the initialization memory
    region is not zero altogether, one would place the object in .data .
    If it's a const object without the flag
    "needs_to_reside_in_ram_even_if_const" it would be placed into .rodata.


IMO, the most complicated part of it would be the new tree pass 3.).

Namely, one would need to find the approriate branch in

void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (__initialize_p, __priority);

, look for "direct_address_expression = immediate_integer_value;" type
expression statements that are not residing inside loops or other complicated
structures and delete them if possible.
Then one would be looking if there is any reference to some VAR_DECL remaining
in the FUNCTION_DECL of the constructor function. If there is still a reference,
one would be setting the "needs_to_reside_in_ram_even_if_const" flag.
Otherwise one would clear it.

I would be willing to start with implementing 1,2 and 4, but I am quite sure 
that I would need help for 3.

Bjoern.

*** Bug 30023 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 31785 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Interesting, but I'm not sure this can legally be done.

Consider:

struct POD {
  int x;
  int y;
};

struct nonPOD {
  int x;
  int y;
  nonPOD(int xx, int yy) : x(xx), y(yy) { }
};

I, for one, would love to see "nonPOD foo(1, 2);" be treated as efficiently as "POD foo = {1, 2};", and I would argue that the case that should be optimized is when the arguments to the constructor are known at compile time, the body of the constructor is completely empty, and all the member variables are POD.

However let us consider this example program, starting with the definitions above and the requisite header files and then:

extern const POD    pod;
extern const nonPOD nonpod;

std::string podStr(pod.x, '*');
std::string nonpodStr(nonpod.x, '*');

const POD pod = {1, 2};
const nonPOD nonpod(1, 2);

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  std::cout << "podStr = '" << podStr << "'\n";
  std::cout << "nonpodStr = '" << nonpodStr << "'\n";
  return 0;
}

Now, the order of construction is well-defined, and that is why the program produces:

podStr = '*'
nonpodStr = ''

That is, the nonPOD is still zero-filled when the constructor for nonpodStr runs, so nonpodStr ends up empty.

I believe that if you change nonPOD so that it sits in .rodata, then it has to be initialized prior to nonpodStr.  This changes the behavior of this perfectly valid program.  No?

(Just for the record, I would whole-heartedly endorse a change to the C++ standard to allow this optimization)

Well if done correctly the compiler would see that nonpod.x was used for the initialization and inline it as zero :).  So really this can be still done.

This is related to generalized constant expressions (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2235.pdf) in C++0x. Those will be marked by the explicit 'constexpr' keyword and will require the initialization to be done at static rather than dynamic initialization time, while this bug is about the optional optimization of moving some extra objects from dynamic to static time.

If I understand it correctly, in C++0x, the following code will require f to be placed in either the .rodata or .data sections, rather than .bss as it's placed now.

struct Foo
{
  constexpr Foo(int a) { t = a; }
  int t;
}

constexpr Foo f(1);


I'd also like to point out that with the extra optimization described here, the following code could also place f in the .data section:

struct Foo
{
  constexpr Foo(int a) { t = a; }
  int t;
}

Foo f(1);  // Note that f is non-const.

This would be useful for getting atomic variables initialized before anything else starts up, but it may well belong in a separate feature request.

*** Bug 44638 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

On:
extern "C" void abort ();

struct S
{
  int x;
  int y;
};

struct T
{
  int x;
  int y;
  T (int u, int v) : x (u), y (v) {}
};

extern const S s;
extern const T t, u;

int sx = s.x;
int tx = t.x;
const S s = { 1, 2 };
const T t (1, 2);
const T u (1, 2);
int ux = u.x;

int
main ()
{
  if (sx != 1 || tx != 0 || ux != 1)
    abort ();
  if (s.x != 1 || s.y != 2)
    abort ();
  if (t.x != 1 || t.y != 2)
    abort ();
  if (u.x != 1 || u.y != 2)
    abort ();
  return 0;
}

it is easy to spot whether this optimization would be possible or not by looking at TREE_USED of the decl at check_initializer time.  It is set for t (and s), but cleared for u.

I guess best would be to wait for the constexpr work, then use that as an infrastructure to discover ctors that aren't marked as constexpr, but they could be and use that at bit together with !TREE_USED during check_initializer to do this optimization.

Using GCC 4.6, which does support constexpr in C++0x mode, it turns out that the compiler does place initialised variables in the .data section. However, const variables are still in .data, not in .rodata.

I don't think they are the same issues, so I reported Bug 49673.

*** Bug 53829 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 66355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to Jorg Brown from comment #20)
> Now, the order of construction is well-defined, and that is why the program
> produces:
> 
> podStr = '*'
> nonpodStr = ''
> 
> That is, the nonPOD is still zero-filled when the constructor for nonpodStr
> runs, so nonpodStr ends up empty.

Actually, looking at paragraph 2 of section 3.6.2 of the 1997 draft standard, it appears that the order of construction is not entirely well defined.  Consider:

     extern int x, y, z;
     int z = y + 1;
     int y = x + 1;
     int x = 10;

As I understand it, x must use static initialization for x, but has the option of using either static or dynamic initialization for y and z.  Normally, variables are initialized in program order, so that z would be initialized before y.  However, if the compiler choses dynamic initialization for z and static initialization for y, then z will be initialized after y.  Similarly, in your example, nonpodStr could be either '' or '*'.

There is one special rule in evaluating the initial value of variables
when static initialization is used:

  If the expression contains a variable
  and the compiler is allowed to use dynamic initialiation for that variable
  and that variable is initialized later in the program
  then zero is used as the value of the variable.

In the above example, if static initialization is used for z, the initial
value will be 1, because zero will be used as the value of y when computing
y + 1.  On the other hand, if static initialization is used for y, the
initial value of y will be 11, because the compiler is require to use
static initialization for x and the rule given above doesn't apply.

In short, computing the values of initializers at compile time for C++ involves a special rule which, as far as I know, doesn't apply to any other language.  For that reason, it might make sense to do this calculation in the C++ front end.  I think that the front end already does a bit of this, but only for expressions that are formally constant expressions.

*** Bug 78773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 84103 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

As previously pointed out, since GCC 4.7, for many classes this is a simple matter of adding "constexpr" to the constructor.

With the testcase for bug 84103, I notice that clang does dynamic initialization at -O0 and static initialization at -O1.  We could do something similar: if the optimizers know the value of a variable at the end of a global initialization function, they could put that value into that variable statically instead.

*** Bug 110925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 77705 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***