[LLVMdev] loads from a null address and optimizations
edwintorok at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 14:01:55 PDT 2009
On 2009-09-06 20:52, Bill Wendling wrote:
> The problem he's facing here isn't necessarily one of correctness.
> He's dealing with undefined behavior (at least in C code). There are
> no guarantees that the compiler will retain a certain semantic
> interpretation of an undefined construct between different versions of
> the compiler, let alone different optimization levels.
Should LLVM IR inherit all that is undefined behavior in C?
That makes it harder to support other languages, or new languages that
want different semantics
for things that the C standard defines as undefined.
BTW even for C gcc has -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, and the Linux
kernel started using that recently
by default after all the exploits that mapped NULL to valid memory, and
took advantage of
gcc optimizing away the NULL checks.
On 2009-09-06 23:22, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> The problem he's facing here isn't necessarily one of correctness.
>> He's dealing with undefined behavior (at least in C code). There are
>> no guarantees that the compiler will retain a certain semantic
>> interpretation of an undefined construct between different versions of
>> the compiler, let alone different optimization levels.
>> From what I understand, he wants a particular behavior from the OS (a
>> signal). The compiler shouldn't have to worry about OS semantics in
>> the face of undefined language constructs. That being said, if he
>> wants to implement a couple of passes to change his code, then
>> sure. :-)
> This is something that LLVM isn't currently good at, but that we're
> actively interested in improving. Here is some related stuff:
Looks interesting, but it also looks like a lot of work to implement.
Could instructions have a flag that says whether their semantics is
C-like (i.e. undefined behavior when you load from null etc.), or
something else? (throw exception, etc.).
Optimizations that assume the behavior is undefined should be updated to
check that flag, and perform the optimization only if the flag is set to
What do you think?
> I don't know of anyone working on this, or planning to work on it in
> the short term though.
Although this is something I'd be interested in having, I lack the time
to implement it.
More information about the llvm-dev