Autoconf tests, libtool symlist files, undefined behavior, and LTO

t66667@gmail.com t66667@gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 15:12:00 GMT 2010


Hello all,
I don't know if my problem suites this description.
On 31/03/2010 6:52 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello gcc and libtool lists,
>
> Summary: both Autoconf-generated configure tests as well as some Libtool
> construct invoke undefined behavior.  Question is how to deal with it,
> and whether GCC, as QoI, may want to define behavior in these cases.
Currently installed libtool on this system is,
ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6b

I recently tested the LTO feature of GCC (targeting windows) and I found 
it was unable to link due to the presence of duplicating lines of *crt* 
without compiling with -flto there were not such issues.

It seems that libtool is emitting dllcrt2, crtbegin, crtend all over 
again after the first crtend. In the following line.
g++ lib64/dllcrt2.o lib64/crtbegin.o ... _alot_of_other_link_arguments_ 
... lib64/crtend.o lib64/dllcrt2.o lib64/crtbegin.o lib64/crtend.o
These last three duplicating .o arguments are causing errors.
lib64/dllcrt2.o:crtdll.c:(.text+0x50): multiple definition of `_CRT_INIT'
lib64/dllcrt2.o:crtdll.c:(.text+0x50): first defined here
Is this a know issue?
>
>
> 1) Autoconf-generated configure tests often fake the prototype of some
> function; e.g., AC_CHECK_FUNC([func]) uses
>    char func();
>
> and tries to link that.  Using this is undefined according to C99, if
> func has a different actual prototype, and when all system libraries are
> LTO'ed, gcc -flto may even detect this kind of inconsistency and could
> act accordingly (nasal demons and such).
>
>
> 2) libtool has a feature that makes it extract symbol lists from
> objects and turn them into fake declarations and function/object
> pointers: fake static preloaded modules.
>
> It currently works by running nm or a similar tool over the object, then
> converting the output with a couple of sed script or so
> (global_symbol_pipe, global_symbol_to_cdecl, and a couple more) to a
> synthesized extra source file that then contains code like this:
>
> extern int func();
> extern char variable;
>
> typedef struct {
>    const char *name;
>    void *address;
> } lt_dlsymlist;
>
> extern const lt_dlsymlist
> lt__PROGRAM__LTX_preloaded_symbols[];
> const lt_dlsymlist
> lt__PROGRAM__LTX_preloaded_symbols[] =
> {  { "@PROGRAM@", (void *) 0 },
>    {"func", (void *)&func},
>    {"variable", (void *)&variable},
>    {0, (void *) 0}
> };
>
> This is invoking undefined behavior in a couple of respects:
>
> a) Pointers to functions are stored in pointer-to-void variables.
> This could be fixed with an incompatible API change to using a union of
> object and function pointer, I guess.
>
> b) The symbols 'func' and 'variable' likely have the wrong prototypes,
> i.e., elsewhere, they might be declared as
>
>    void func(int, double);
>    double variable[42];
>
> instead.  I haven't come across any actual issues with this yet, except
> now LTO may rightfully complain about it.
>
>
> Question is, what can we do about this?  We could ensure to never pass
> -flto or -fwhopr to the compilation of the libtool symfile object, and
> remove it from some or all link tests done in configure.  That's ugly.
> Would that even be sufficient though?  Conversely, would GCC developers
> be willing to agree that, when GCC detects such inconsistencies, it
> wouldn't take adverse advantage of it (e.g., by turning off LTO in this
> case, or similar)?
>
> Other possibilities for Autoconf would be to work toward a new set of
> checking macros (or extensions of current one) where the configure.ac
> author passes a full prototype for each function to check (Autoconf
> could keep a list of known prototypes for often-checked functions).
> I'm not sure how to fix the libtool symfile in a C99-conforming way.
>
> Thanks for reading this far.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>



More information about the Gcc mailing list