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: [PATCH] Make GO string literals properly NUL terminated

On 08/24/18 12:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:57 AM Bernd Edlinger
> <> wrote:
>> On 08/21/18 10:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hmm.  I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
>>>>>>>>> match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
>>>>>>>>> for your check above.  Because the '\0' doesn't belong to the
>>>>>>>>> string.  Then build_string internally appends a '\0' outside
>>>>>>>>> of TREE_STRING_LENGTH.
>>>>>>>> Hmm. Yes, but the outside-0 byte is just one byte, not a wide
>>>>>>>> character.
>>>>>>> That could be fixed though (a wide 0 is just N 0s).  Add a elsz = 1
>>>>>>> parameter to build_string and allocate as many extra 0s as needed.
>>>>>>>       There are STRING_CSTs which are not string literals,
>>>>>>>> for instance attribute tags, Pragmas, asm constrants, etc.
>>>>>>>> They use the '\0' outside, and have probably no TREE_TYPE.
>>>>>>>>>> So I would like to be able to assume that the STRING_CST objects
>>>>>>>>>> are internally always generated properly by the front end.
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I guess we need to define what "properly" is ;)
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>> And that the ARRAY_TYPE of the string literal either has the
>>>>>>>>>> same length than the TREE_STRING_LENGTH or if it is shorter,
>>>>>>>>>> this is always exactly one (wide) character size less than TREE_STRING_LENGTH
>>>>>>>>> I think it should be always the same...
>>>>>>>> One could not differentiate between "\0" without zero-termination
>>>>>>>> and "" with zero-termination, theoretically.
>>>>>>> Is that important?  Doesn't the C standard say how to parse string literals?
>>>>>>>> We also have char x[100] = "ab";
>>>>>>>> that is TREE_STRING_LENGTH=3, and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT(TREE_TYPE(x)) = 100.
>>>>>>>> Of course one could create it with a TREE_STRING_LENGTH = 100,
>>>>>>>> but imagine char x[100000000000] = "ab"
>>>>>>> The question is more about TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE ("ab")) which I
>>>>>>> hope matches "ab" and not 'x'.  If it matches 'x' then I'd rather have it
>>>>>>> unconditionally be [], thus incomplete (because the literals "size" depends
>>>>>>> on the context/LHS it is used on).
>>>>>> Sorry, but I must say, it is not at all like that.
>>>>>> If I compile x.c:
>>>>>> const char x[100] = "ab";
>>>>>> and set a breakpoint at output_constant:
>>>>>> Breakpoint 1, output_constant (exp=0x7ffff6ff9dc8, size=100, align=256,
>>>>>>         reverse=false) at ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/varasm.c:4821
>>>>>> 4821         if (size == 0 || flag_syntax_only)
>>>>>> (gdb) p size
>>>>>> $1 = 100
>>>>>> (gdb) call debug(exp)
>>>>>> "ab"
>>>>>> (gdb) p *exp
>>>>>> $2 = {base = {code = STRING_CST, side_effects_flag = 0, constant_flag = 1,
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->typed.type->type_common.size_unit
>>>>>> $5 = (tree) 0x7ffff6ff9d80
>>>>>> (gdb) call debug(exp->typed.type->type_common.size_unit)
>>>>>> 100
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->string.length
>>>>>> $6 = 3
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->string.str[0]
>>>>>> $8 = 97 'a'
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->string.str[1]
>>>>>> $9 = 98 'b'
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->string.str[2]
>>>>>> $10 = 0 '\000'
>>>>>> (gdb) p exp->string.str[3]
>>>>>> $11 = 0 '\000'
>>>>>> This is an important property of string_cst objects, that is used in c_strlen:
>>>>>> It folds c_strlen(&x[4]) directly to 0, because every byte beyond TREE_STRING_LENGTH
>>>>>> is guaranteed to be zero up to the type size.
>>>>>> I would not have spent one thought on implementing an optimization like that,
>>>>>> but that's how it is right now.
>>>>> Huh.  So somebody interpreted STRING_CSTs similar to CONSTRUCTORs aka
>>>>> they have zero-padding up to its type size.  I don't see this documented
>>>>> anywhere and it would suggest to "optimize" "ab\0\0\0\0" to "ab\0"
>>>>> with appropriate TYPE_SIZE.
>>>>> This is also a relatively new thing on trunk (coming out of the added
>>>>> mem_size parameter of string_constant).  That this looks at the STRING_CST
>>>>> type like
>>>>>      if (TREE_CODE (array) == STRING_CST)
>>>>>        {
>>>>>          *ptr_offset = fold_convert (sizetype, offset);
>>>>>          if (mem_size)
>>>>>            *mem_size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (array));
>>>>>          return array;
>>>>> I'd call simply a bug.  As said, interpretation of STRING_CSTs should
>>>>> depend on the context.  And for
>>>> This use of the TYPE_SIZE_UNIT was pre-existing to r263607
>>>> before that (but not in the gcc-8-branch) we had this in c_strlen:
>>>>      HOST_WIDE_INT maxelts = strelts;
>>>>      tree type = TREE_TYPE (src);
>>>>      if (tree size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type))
>>>>        if (tree_fits_shwi_p (size))
>>>>          {
>>>>           maxelts = tree_to_uhwi (size);
>>>>           maxelts = maxelts / eltsize - 1;
>>>>          }
>>>> which I moved to string_constant and return the result through memsize.
>>>> It seems to be working somehow, and I'd bet removing that will immediately
>>>> break twenty or thirty of the strlenopt tests.
>>>> Obviously the tree string objects allow way too much variations,
>>>> and it has to be restricted in some way or another.
>>>> In the moment my approach is: look at what most string constants do
>>>> and add assertions to ensure that there are no exceptions.
>>>>> char a[4] = "abc";
>>>>> char b[5] = "abc";
>>>>> we should better be able to share STRING_CSTs [you can see LTO
>>>>> sharing the nodes if you do b[4] but not when b[5] I suppose].
>>>>>> All I want to do, is make sure that all string constants have the same look and feel
>>>>>> in the middle-end, and restrict the variations that are allowed by the current
>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>> Sure, I understand that.  But I'd like to simplify things and not add
>>>>> complications like looking at TYPE_SIZE vs. TREE_STRING_LENGTH to decide
>>>>> whether sth is 0-terminated.
>>>> This is not only about 0-terminated. (*)
>>>> It is also about when you get a STRING_CST with a TREE_STRING_LENGTH,
>>>> there are places in the middle-end that assume that the object contains
>>>> _all_ bytes up to TREE_STRING_LENGTH without looking at TYPE_SIZE_UINT.
>>>> Those I want to protect.
>>> Well, but string_constant handles &STRING_CST just fine but in that
>>> context there's no "object" we look at.
>>> IMHO whenever string_constant ends up with a DECL, looking at
>>> ctor_for_folding and we end up with a STRING_CST that doesn't fit
>>> in the DECL we looked at we have a bug (non-truncated STRING_CST)
>>> and either should do the truncation or simply return NULL.
>>> So we should look at DECL_SIZE_UNIT and compare that with
>>> TREE_STRING_LENGTH.  Otherwise you are relying on TYPE_SIZE_UNIT
>>> of the STRING_CST being "correct" (fitting the decl context).
>>>> Bernd.
>>>> *: I called the parameter memsize, and yes, I wrote: "If MEM_SIZE is zero,
>>>> the string is only returned when it is properly zero terminated.",
>>>> but maybe I should have written:
>>>> "If MEM_SIZE is zero, the string is only returned when the storage size
>>>> of the string object is at least TREE_STRING_LENGTH."
>>>> That's at least exactly what the check does.
>>> Well, as said above
>>>     if (TREE_CODE (array) == STRING_CST)
>>>       {
>>>         *ptr_offset = fold_convert (sizetype, offset);
>>>         if (mem_size)
>>>           *mem_size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (array));
>>>         return array;
>>>       }
>>> simply assumes the "storage size" of a STRING_CST is determined
>>> by its TYPE_SIZE_UNIT.  That may be true as you noted in the folloup,
>>> but clearly in the above case there's nothing to protect?  And in
>>> the case we pulled the STRING_CST from some DECL_INITIAL it doesn't
>>> protect from overflow of the FIELD_DECL unless frontends never
>>> generate "wrong" STRING_CSTs?
>> Hmm, I digged some more in varasm.c
>> Normal STRING_CST use get_constant_size to allocate
>> thus they can have excess zero bytes.
>> while STRING_CST that are in DECL_INITIALIZERs
>> are shrinked to DECL_SIZE_UNIT.
>> At least that difference looks unnecessary to me.
>> But compare_constant does not compare the TYPE_SIZE_UNIT:
>>       case STRING_CST:
>>         if (TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (t1)) != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (t2)))
>>           return 0;
>>         return (TREE_STRING_LENGTH (t1) == TREE_STRING_LENGTH (t2)
>>                 && ! memcmp (TREE_STRING_POINTER (t1), TREE_STRING_POINTER (t2),
>>                            TREE_STRING_LENGTH (t1)));
>> This looks now like a bug.
> Well.  I think that we emit excess zero bytes for "truncated" STRING_CSTs isn't
> a designed feature.  I'd rather not have it that way because the length of a
> STRING_CST becomes defined in multiple places if you consider STRING_CST
> with [] or too small type then TREE_STRING_LENGTH is authorative while
> if the type is larger then that is authorative.
> The length of a STRING_CST if output should be only determined from

Hmm. I think about that.  It is possible that I change my mind....

Currently the semantic of STRING_CST objects differs for literals
and for initializer elements.

For literals the TREE_STRING_LENGTH is guaranteed to resemble
the runtime string object.

For initializer elements the type domain overrides the TREE_STRING_LENGTH
if it is available.  If it is a flexible array member the type domain
is not available, and the TREE_STRING_LENGTH determines the memory size.

The regression in tree-ssa-forwprop.c (PR 86714) is caused by
the fact that previously constant_string did always return string literals
while now it can as well return initializer elements.
But tree-ssa-forwprop expects string literal semantics.

I would like to remove the semantic differences.

I have a patch in the test, that fixes the TYPE_DOMAIN of flexible
array members.

Maybe the most important property is TYPE_DOMAIN of the STRING_CST should never
be shorter than the TREE_STRING_LENGTH. Then it the difference between
string literals and string initializers will disappear.

And that should probably take precedence over the zero-termination property of
the string_cst objects.

Which will of course put one more question mark on the correctness of the
string_constant, c_strlen etc.

>>> Btw, get_constant_size / mergeable_string_section suggsts that
>>> we may view STRING_CST as general target-encoded byte blob.
>>> That may be useful to compress CONSTRUCTORs memory use.
>>> It looks like mergeable_string_section wrongly would reject
>>> a char[] typed string because int_size_in_bytes returns -1
>>> for incomplete types.  I still believe using char[] for most
>>> STRING_CSTs generated by FEs would be a good thing for
>>> IL memory use.  Shouldn't the mem_size initializations use
>>> sth like get_constant_size as well?
>> I think incomplete types exist only in structs with variable
>> length:
>> struct {
>>     int x;
>>     char y[];
>> } s = { 1, "test" };
>> this is no candidate for a mergeable string.
>> but
>> char y[] = "test";
>> is fixed by the FE to:
>> char y[5] = "test";
>> So that does not make problems with mergeable_string_section.
>>> Also
>>>     if (mem_size)
>>>       *mem_size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (init));
>>>     else if (compare_tree_int (array_size, length + 1) < 0)
>>>       return NULL_TREE;
>>> the latter check doesn't seem to honor 'offset' and *mem_size
>>> is again looking at the STRING_CST, not at the FIELD_DECL or
>>> wherever we got the STRING_CST from.
>> the caller compares offset with *mem_size, but we do not have
>> the FIELD_DECL at hand here (Or I did not know where it was).
>> I'd rather fail the cases when the TYPE_SIZE_UNIT is null,
>> or something non-constant.
>> All those are variations of vla with initializer and similar.
>> Once the STRING_CST has a type, I would like to use it,
>> when it doesn't the whole thing is probably not worth it
>> anyway.
> I would rather have STRING_CSTs only have a type for the
> elements, not the whole thing...  you can get that
> if you drop TYPE_DOMAIN on all STRING_CSTs array types.

This will break the string_constant code even more.
It depends on the TYPE_DOMAIN to mean something.

> Not sure what breaks if we change get_constant_size to
> return TREE_STRING_LENGTH unconditionally.  At least
> somehow the need to special-case STRING_CSTs looks
> odd and I wonder if we do this in other functions as well...
I think as well this special handling in get_constant_size
is something that has to go away.

It is even worse, the DECL_SIZE_UNIT is also NULL in
flexible array members.

But I think I can make it work the other way round.
So that STRING_CST always have a TYPE_DOMAIN which
may only be larger than the TREE_STRING_LENGTH.


> Richard.
>> Bernd.

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