[cfe-dev] [analyzer] C++ and inlining.

Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Dec 3 14:16:50 PST 2017


In this particular example this happens because we may potentially have 
the constructor of D defined as

D::D() {
   bool *haveXptr = ((void *)this) - (offsetof(C, d) - offsetof(C, x));
   *haveXptr = !*haveXptr;
}

which is valid code that changes haveX between initialization and 
assignment.

However, an external function is unlikely to contain the 'this' pointer 
(pointer to variable 'c'). At least in your code generation example, 
where 'c' is a local variable and the pointer to it never escapes to the 
global scope.

Generally, in the analyzer when we don't know if something can happen, 
we often prefer to assume the worst, much like in codegen. In this 
particular example i'd be for toning down the invalidation (as in 
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-November/056103.html), but 
there may be more reasons for invalidating stuff, some of which sound 
much more convincing.

On 12/3/17 12:56 PM, Alexey Salmin wrote:
> Speaking of the code sample from the first e-mail: does anyone has an
> explanation why it is the non-inlined constructor being a special
> case? If you replace with an arbitrary non-inlined function call
> between the haveX initialization and the "if" condition the analysis
> seem to work fine. Compare assembly in [1] with the "D d;" line
> commented out and active.
>
> [1] https://godbolt.org/g/jmSKT9
>
> Alexey
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/17 3:17 PM, Gábor Horváth wrote:
>>> Hi Artem!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 November 2017 at 12:10, Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev
>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      I've observed a lot of false positives on WebKit that resulted
>>>      from our inability to inline relatively simple functions in C++,
>>>      specifically constructors and operator new(), due to unimplemented
>>>      modeling. So i wanted to document, and eventually fix, a variety
>>>      of language feature modeling we're currently lacking. Note that
>>>      WebKit, like LLVM, is not a typical C++ codebase; it uses many
>>>      language constructs that regular projects don't use, and uses very
>>>      little standard library headers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Great news!
>>>
>>>
>>>      ---
>>>
>>>      Normally we expect the analyzer to work even without any inlining,
>>>      by conservatively invalidating the program state, which eliminates
>>>      the clearly false assumptions but sometimes causes infeasible
>>>      paths when the invalidation was too aggressive and we start
>>>      denoting the same value with a different symbol after invalidation
>>>      and assume contradictory stuff on the old and the new symbol. The
>>>      false positives resulting from aggressive invalidation are usually
>>>      treated as less scary than the ones suppressed by invalidation,
>>>      because they can be easily suppressed (with assertions or const
>>>      qualifiers etc.) without loss of coverage. However, in C++ there
>>>      are a lot of implicit function calls which cause massive
>>>      frustration when evaluated conservatively. For example,
>>>
>>>        class C {
>>>          bool haveX;
>>>          class D d;
>>>
>>>        public:
>>>          C(int *x): haveX(x != 0) {
>>>            if (haveX)
>>>              *x = 1; // null dereference??
>>>          }
>>>        };
>>>
>>>      In this case, 'haveX' should assume that x is non-null. The code
>>>      eagerly splits states into {x == 0} and {x != 0}, which seems
>>>      reasonable. However, after 'haveX' have been initialized, the
>>>      default constructor for field 'd' kicks in. If only this
>>>      constructor is not inlined, or any of its callees are not inlined,
>>>      value stored in 'haveX' would be invalidated on both paths. In
>>>      particular, the path on which the original 'haveX' is false but
>>>      the invalidated 'haveX' is true have now opened up.
>>>
>>>
>>> I observed the very same pattern on Ericsson internal codebases, so
>>> sorting this out is definitely a huge win for many projects (not just LLVM
>>> and WebKit).
>>>
>>>
>>>      ---
>>>
>>>      Inlining of the constructor itself is disabled in many cases for
>>>      many reasons. In particular, we are currently only trying to
>>>      inline the constructor when the target this-region is a DeclRegion
>>>      (variable, member variable, Objective-C++ instance var), and the
>>>      destructor is non-trivial. This cuts away a lot of cases:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not clear for my why the non-trivial destructor is a requirement
>>> here. Do yo have any info on that?
>>>
>>>
>>>      * Constructing into temporaries is disabled when destructor is
>>>      non-trivial. At least, we should be able to inline those when the
>>>      destructor is present at all, so that it would be evaluated
>>>      conservatively. One thing to note here is that our CFG has been
>>>      recently fixed, so we're much closer to fixing this properly
>>>      nowadays. However, CFG alone is not enough to figure out which
>>>      destructor needs to be called; for instance, if a
>>>      lifetime-extended temporary is initialized with an operator?:
>>>      expression, we'd need path-sensitive information to figure out
>>>      which object to destroy.
>>>
>>>      * Temporaries are also special because our pass-by-value is not
>>>      always working correctly. In particular, when we inline 'foo(c)',
>>>      where variable 'c' is of 'class C', we first copy 'c' into a
>>>      temporary region, and then trivial-copy it into the stack
>>>      variable-region of the function parameter, while we should be
>>>      constructing directly into the parameter region. We cannot
>>>      construct directly into the parameter region because the stack
>>>      frame has not yet been constructed, because arguments are not yet
>>>      computed. More reading on the subject, even if a bit outdated, is
>>>      at
>>>
>>> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Inlining-temporary-destructors-in-the-analyzer-td4040851.html
>>>
>>> <http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Inlining-temporary-destructors-in-the-analyzer-td4040851.html>
>>>      This is a hard problem, but i wasn't noticing many instances of it
>>>      yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am wondering what the analyzer does with copy elision? Do we model that
>>> somehow?
>>>
>>>
>>>      * Base object region constructors are disabled when destructor is
>>>      non-trivial. This sounds like an accidental omission.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice catch.
>>
>> Actually not so much. This bailout only fires for CK_Complete constructor
>> kinds, and base-object constructors aren't "complete" in this sense, so they
>> work fine.
>>
>> This might still affect a complete constructor that follows placement-new
>> into a base-object region (i'd be shocked to see code that actually does
>> it).
>>
>>>      * Construction into ElementRegion is disabled regardless of
>>>      destructors. In particular, mass array constructions are disabled.
>>>      There is a special AST for this case, which emulates the loop
>>>      through the array (or return value of operator new[]) with a loop
>>>      counter variable and all. We have no support for this whole
>>>      language construct. Note, however, that ElementRegion is much more
>>>      than array element; it is often used for representing casts, and
>>>      in particular it appears in return values of a conservatively
>>>      evaluated operator new() (i.e. element{SymRegion}) and is likely
>>>      to appear in placement-new() return values for the same reason. So
>>>      we should discriminate between these two cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know why casts are represented this way? Is this something that we
>>> might want to change in the future? I think one of the reasons why
>>> construction into ElementRegion is disabled because arrays are populated
>>> lazily by the analyzer. And this does not work well with code that relies on
>>> the fact that the number of constructor/destructor invocations is the same
>>> as the number of elements in the array.
>>>
>>>
>>>      * Constructing into return value of operator new() is disabled
>>>      completely anyway, because there's a modeling problem that causes
>>>      us to be unable to connect the constructor with the correct
>>>      this-region. The CFG part of this problem was fixed by Jordan in
>>>      2014 by adding the CFGNewAllocator element, so we now actually
>>>      call the operator and the constructor in the correct order, but we
>>>      still need to pass the operator new's return value to the
>>>      constructor. Note how pointless it is to enable it, or even inline
>>>      a custom operator new, until construction into ElementRegion is fixed.
>>>
>>>      ---
>>>
>>>      Speaking of inlining operator new():
>>>
>>>      * For correct modeling in the core, it seems that the only thing
>>>      that remains is to actually use the return value of operator new()
>>>      and construct the new object *into* it. Sounds easy.
>>>
>>>      * I’m also immediately noticing the unimplemented path diagnostics
>>>      within the inlined operator new(), which crash with
>>>      llvm_unreachable(“not yet implemented”) whenever a visitor fires
>>>      within it (eg. to indicate that memory allocated there leaks).
>>>
>>>      * MallocChecker keeps being surprised with various non-symbolic
>>>      stuff that may come out from operator new().
>>>      https://reviews.llvm.org/D37189 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D37189>
>>>      doesn’t cover all cases; in particular, void *operator new(size_t)
>>>      { static int x; return &x; } seems to instantly crash after inlining.
>>>
>>>      ---
>>>
>>>      From now on i'd like to experiment with, first of all, disabling
>>>      the DeclRegion bailout when possible. Then i'd try to inline
>>>      operator new, pass its return value to the respective constructor,
>>>      and inline said constructor. I'm not sure if i'd be able to dig
>>>      into the temporaries and pass-by-copy problems soon.
>>>
>>>      And i believe that when it comes to C++ pure language constructs,
>>>      i listed most of the problems i'm aware of, with the exception of,
>>>      well, *exceptions* (which also need CFG work). Of course we could
>>>      do better modeling the standard library as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for collecting these problems!
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      cfe-dev mailing list
>>>      cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>      http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>      <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev



More information about the cfe-dev mailing list