protected alloca class for malloc fallback
Richard Biener
richard.guenther@gmail.com
Fri Aug 5 17:56:00 GMT 2016
On August 5, 2016 4:42:48 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I was surprised by the always_inline trick. I suppose it makes
>> sense but I wouldn't have expected to be able to rely on it. Out
>> of curiosity I tested it with other compilers. It turns out that
>> it only works with some like GCC and IBM XLC++, but not others
>> like Clang or Sun CC. In recursive calls, they don't seem to
>> hold on to the memory allocated via alloca by the class ctor in
>> the caller.
>
>Well, it was surprising to me as well, hence the comment. I expected
>it
>to just work, and when it didn't I had to hunt in the inliner code to
>find out why it was selectively inlining:
>
> case GIMPLE_CALL:
> /* Refuse to inline alloca call unless user explicitly forced so as
> this may change program's memory overhead drastically when the
> function using alloca is called in loop. In GCC present in
> SPEC2000 inlining into schedule_block cause it to require 2GB of
> RAM instead of 256MB. Don't do so for alloca calls emitted for
> VLA objects as those can't cause unbounded growth (they're always
> wrapped inside stack_save/stack_restore regions. */
>
>As Richi pointed out, if the constructor doesn't get inlined (as you're
>
>seeing in Clang and Sun CC), we could potentially clobber freed memory.
>
> So much for that idea...
>
>>
>> FWIW, rather than creating a new class around alloca and putting
>> effort into changing code to use it I think that investing time
>> into replacing the function's uses with an existing C++ container
>> class (either GCC's own or one from the STL) might be a better
>> way to go.
>
>Yes, I suggested a combination of auto_vec<> (gcc's) and std::string
>down thread.
Please don't use std::string. For string building you can use obstacks.
Richard.
>Thanks for checking out the result from other compilers. Much
>appreciated.
>
>Aldy
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list