<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:46 AM, Jonny Grant <<a href="mailto:jg@jguk.org">jg@jguk.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi JF<br>
<br>
Was just wondering how things were going adding these memset_s
(and the others you mentioned).?<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I haven’t started. It’s on my short list of things to do. </div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
Jonny<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/01/2019 20:37, JF Bastien wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:C978F92E-BC8F-4DF8-9F3E-2AE9CEBC09B8@apple.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I think clang could offer builtins which provide some of the Annex
K building blocks, and let libc implementations provide the rest
(using the clang builtins when available).
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’m interested in implementing these builtins,
unless someone beats me to it. User code often uses Annex K to
provide guarantees that are now redundant with trivial automatic
variable initialization (<a href="http://llvm.org/rL349442" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm.org/rL349442</a>), and
I’d like to reduce the hit they’re taking. Here are some notes I
wrote for myself a little while ago:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">I’ll focus on memset, but this applies to other
Annex K functionality (memcpy_s, memmove_s, strcpy_s,
strncpy_s, strcat_s, strncat_s, strtok_s, memset_s,
strerror_s, strerrorlen_s, strnlen_s).</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">These functions simply perform extra checks
before calling their regular equivalent, with an extra
provision that the operation can’t be as-if’d away (i.e. you
have to do the entire memset).</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Often, custom memset_s implementations are
simple loops (cast to char*, and set each byte to 0),
compiled in a different TU, which, amusingly thought LTO and
inlining, would totally not obey the “no as-if” rule. Other
times they’re implemented in opaque assembly.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Clang doesn’t know about this function, and
assumes it’s just another function call. We should tell the
compiler about what these functions do so that it knows that
stores prior to memset_s are dead, memset_s can’t be
removed, what the extra memset_s checks are, and so that we
can forward values from memset_s. We can then generate
better code (small loops become stores with a loop, memset_s
followed by stores get merged, etc).</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">A few options:</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">1. Make them a builtin, have libc
implementations forward to the builtin.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">2. Teach clang / LLVM about these function’s
semantics (i.e. if conditions met, same as memset).</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">3. Add an attribute which teaches clang about
memset-like functions, and use it in libc implementations.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">4. Use LTO between the projects and libc
implementations, allowing clang to peek into memset_s’s
implementation.</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think 1. is the best approach.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 4, 2019, at 1:35 AM, Jonny Grant via
cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">Thank you for your reply Richard.<br class="">
<br class="">
On 03/01/2019 22:04, Richard Smith wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at
13:44, Jonny Grant via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>>
wrote:<br class="">
Hello<br class="">
This file lists part of Annex K "stdint.h"<br class="">
<a href="https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/stdint_8h_source.html" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/stdint_8h_source.html</a><br class="">
But main C++ page doesn't mention Annex K. Is
Annex K really fully<br class="">
supported?<br class="">
That's generally not up to us; that's part of the C
standard library, not part of the compiler.<br class="">
The one part of Annex K that *is* part of the
compiler, according to the usual division of
responsibilities, wherein the compiler provides the
freestanding headers and the C standard library
provides the rest, is the definition of rsize_t in
<stddef.h> and the definition of RSIZE_MAX in
<stdint.h>, and Clang provides those if
__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ is defined. However, we do
not define __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ because, as noted,
that's not up to us, and we have no idea what your C
standard library supports.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
I use glibc, it doesn't support Annex K. We are keen
to use Annex K functionality, so looking around for
options.<br class="">
<br class="">
Do you know if Clang has any intention to develop
support for a libc C11 with Annex K Support?<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm looking around, and came across this project<br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/rurban/safeclib/blob/master/README" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/rurban/safeclib/blob/master/README</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">So in that sense, we
implement the part of Annex K that is in our domain.<br class="">
Some background<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html" moz-do-not-send="true">https://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html" moz-do-not-send="true">https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html</a><br class="">
I'm not sure what these are supposed to show: Annex
K is optional in C, and not part of C++.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
It would be good if what you state could be added to
the compatibility page, that Annex K is supported only
for stdint.h, but that clang requires a libc which
supports C11 Annex K functions/implementation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers, Jonny<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
cfe-dev mailing list<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" moz-do-not-send="true">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>