This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse

Geert Bosch writes:
 > On Tuesday, Nov 19, 2002, at 11:21 America/New_York, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > As far as I can see it's never correct to CSE two instructions if the
 > > first one may trap.
 > This will severely harm performance with non-call exceptions.
 > For languages such as Ada that need non-call exceptions to work for
 > implementing language-defined checks, and allow such exceptions
 > to be raised at an arbitrary point in a function, it should be
 > possible to retain the current behavior.

The languge is quite difficult to follow, but I take it that, in the
case of Ada, when a memory trap occurs the target of a read may or may
not have been modified, and its contents must be regarded as

To quote the Java specification:

"Each local variable (14.4) and every blank final (4.5.4) field
( must have a definitely assigned value when any access of
its value occurs. A Java compiler must carry out a specific
conservative flow analysis to make sure that, for every access of a
local variable or blank final field f, f is definitely assigned before
the access; otherwise a compile-time error must occur." [1]

This has security ramifications: we must guarantee that object
references may only be obtained by code with appropriate permissions.
In this case, a register is uninitialized and therefore may contain
anything at all, including a reference to an object that untrusted
code is not permitted to access.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]