Re: VM-related Oops: 2.4.15pre1

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

Hi!

> > Why is it a compiler bug. You've not declared that variable to be volatile
> > therefore it is only touched in the code flow the compiler is analysing.
> 
> Even without volatile, the compiler is very arguably buggy if it writes
> values to your variables that were never supposed to be there.
> 
> Take this, for example:
> 
> 	sig_atomic_t value = 1;
> 
> 	int fn()
> 	{
> 		value = 2;
> 	}
> 
> And a signal comes in. Even without the volatile, if gcc has written
> _anything_ else than 1 or 2 into the variable, gcc is BROKEN.

imagine 

typedef volatile int sig_atomic_t;

> There's no point being a language lawyer and saying that gcc "could write
> anything to value before it writes the final 2". Tha's not true. A compile
> rthat does that is
> 
>  (a) buggy as hell from a POSIX standpoint
>  (b) even apart from POSIX, from a Q-of-I standpoint complete and utter
>      crap.

Imagine this:

if (likely(foo))
	c = 1
else	c = 2

I could see it optimized as

c = 1
if (unlikely(foo))
	c = 2

Given enough register pressure.... I've seen similar optimalizations proposed
in "advanced compilers" book.
								Pavel
PS: but wrapping access to current->flags in macro is probably okay for now.
I just wanted to show that writing unwanted value is not as broken as you
think.

-- 
Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt,
details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.