This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH v4][C][ADA] use function descriptors instead of trampolines in C
- From: "Uecker, Martin" <Martin dot Uecker at med dot uni-goettingen dot de>
- To: "law at redhat dot com" <law at redhat dot com>, "jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "nd at arm dot com" <nd at arm dot com>, "paulkoning at comcast dot net" <paulkoning at comcast dot net>, "Szabolcs dot Nagy at arm dot com" <Szabolcs dot Nagy at arm dot com>, "msebor at gmail dot com" <msebor at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com" <Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com>, "ebotcazou at adacore dot com" <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:29:23 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4][C][ADA] use function descriptors instead of trampolines in C
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <5896AE4C-D296-4FAF-A809-7BACA532BBF5@comcast.net> <20181218153209.GP23305@tucnak> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181218162440.GQ23305@tucnak>
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2018, 17:24 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:03:41AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Right. This is the classic example and highlights the ABI concerns. If
> > we use the low bit to distinguish between a normal function pointer and
> > a pointer to a descriptor and qsort doesn't know about it, then we lose.
> > One way around this is to make *all* function pointers be some kind of
> > descriptor and route all indirect calls through a resolver. THen you
> Either way, you are creating a new ABI for calling functions through
> function pointers. Because of how rarely GNU C nested functions are used
> these days, if we want to do anything I'd think it might be better to use
> trampolines, just don't place them on the stack, say have a mmaped page of
> trampolines perhaps with some pointer encryption to where they jump to, so
> it isn't a way to circumvent non-executable stack, and have some register
> and unregister function you'd call to get or release the trampoline.
> If more trampolines are needed than currently available, the library could
> just mmap another such page. A problem is how it should interact with
> longjmp or similar APIs, because then we could leak some trampolines (no
> "destructor" for the trampoline would be called. The leaking could be
> handled e.g. through remembering the thread and frame pointer for which it
> has been allocated and if you ask for a new trampoline with a frame pointer
> above the already allocated one, release those entries or reuse them,
> instead of allocating a new one. And somehow deal with thread exit.
Yes, something like this. If the trampolines are pre-allocated, this could
even avoid the need to clear the cache on archs where this is needed.