[cfe-dev] Spurious register spill with volatile function argument
Andrew Haley via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 28 02:16:29 PDT 2016
On 27/03/16 06:57, Michael Clark wrote:
> GCC, Clang folk, any ideas on why there is a stack spill for a
> volatile register argument passed in esi? Does volatile force the
> argument to have storage allocated on the stack? Is this a corner
> case in the C standard? This argument in the x86_64 calling
> convention only has a register, so technically it can’t change
> outside the control of the C "virtual machine” so volatile has a
> vague meaning here.
"volatile" doesn't really mean very much, formally speaking. Sure, the
standard says "accesses to volatile objects are evaluated
strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine," but nowhere
is it specified exactly what constitutes an access. (To be precise,
"what constitutes an access to an object that has volatile-qualified
type is implementation-defined.")
So, we have to fall back to tradition. Traditionally, all volatile
objects are allocated stack slots and all accesses to them are memory
accesses. This is consistent behaviour, and has been for a long time.
It is also extremely useful when debugging optimized code.
> volatile for scalar function arguments seems to mean: “make this
> volatile and subject to change outside of the compiler” rather than
> being a qualifier for its storage (which is a register).
No, arguments are not necessarily stored in registers: they're passed
in registers, but after function entry function they're just auto
variables and are stored wherever the compiler likes.
More information about the cfe-dev