[PATCH] RE: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for non-void functions in C++

Wed Aug 12 15:06:27 PDT 2015

This patch seems a bit confused. You warn that the flag is ignored in C++,
but it only has an effect in C++. You have a testcase with a .c extension
that is built with -x c++.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Sjoerd Meijer <sjoerd.meijer at arm.com>
wrote:

> [ + cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org ]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The functionality is now available under a flag, see attached patch. Note
> that the flag is ignored in C++ mode, so it will help the use case of
> compiling (legacy) C code with a C++ compiler.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sjoerd.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sjoerd Meijer [mailto:sjoerd.meijer at arm.com
> <sjoerd.meijer at arm.com>]
> *Sent:* 03 August 2015 11:40
> *To:* 'Richard Smith'
> *Cc:* Hal Finkel; Marshall Clow; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers; cfe
> commits
> *Subject:* RE: [PATCH] RE: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for
> non-void functions in C++
>
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> I agree with your conclusions and will start preparing a patch for option
> 3) under a flag that is off by default; this enables folks to build/run C
> code in C++. I actually think option 2) would be a good one too, but as it
> is already available under a flag I also don’t see how useful it is
> combining options 2) and 3) with another (or one more) flag that is off by
> default.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> *From:* metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com <metafoo at gmail.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Smith
> *Sent:* 31 July 2015 19:46
> *To:* Sjoerd Meijer
> *Cc:* Hal Finkel; Marshall Clow; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers; cfe
> commits
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] RE: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for
> non-void functions in C++
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Sjoerd Meijer <sjoerd.meijer at arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, I am not sure if we came to a conclusion. Please find attached a
> patch. It simply removes the two lines that insert an unreachable statement
> (which cause removal of the return statement). Please note that at -O0 the
> trap instruction is still generated. Is this something we could live with?
>
>
>
> I don't think this is an improvement:
>
>
>
> This doesn't satisfy the folks who want an 'unreachable' for better code
> size and optimization, and it doesn't satisfy the folks who want a
> guaranteed trap for security, and it doesn't satisfy the folks who want
> their broken code to limp along (because it'll still trap at -O0), and it
> is at best a minor improvement for the folks who want missing returns to be
> more easily debuggable (with -On, the code goes wrong in the caller, or
> appears to work, rather than falling into an unrelated function, and
> debugging this with -O0 was already easy).
>
>
>
> I think there are three options that are defensible here:
>
> 1) The status quo: this is UB and we treat it as such and optimize on that
> basis, but provide a trap as a convenience at -O0
>
> 2) The secure approach: this is UB but we always trap
>
> 3) Define the behavior to return 'undef' for C types: this allows
> questionable C code that has UB in C++ to keep working when built with a
> C++ compiler
>
>
>
> Note that (3) can be combined with either (1) or (2). (2) is already
> available via the 'return' sanitizer. So this really reduces to: in those
> cases where C says it's OK so long as the caller doesn't look at the
> returned value (and where the return type doesn't have a non-trivial copy
> constructor or destructor, isn't a reference, and so on), should we attempt
> to preserve the C behaviour? I would be OK with putting that behind a `-f`
> flag (perhaps `-fstrict-return` or similar) to support those folks who want
> to build C code in C++, but I would suggest having that flag be off by
> default, since that is not the usual use case for a C++ compiler.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sjoerd.
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Smith
> *Sent:* 29 July 2015 18:07
> *To:* Hal Finkel
> *Cc:* Marshall Clow; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for non-void functions
> in C++
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2015 7:43 AM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> > > To: "James Molloy" <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>
> > > Cc: "Marshall Clow" <mclow.lists at gmail.com>, "cfe-dev Developers" <
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:15:09 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for non-void functions
> in C++
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 29, 2015 7:06 AM, "James Molloy" < james at jamesmolloy.co.uk >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If we're going to emit a trap instruction (and thus create a broken
> > > > binary), why don't we error instead?
> > >
> > > We warn, can't error, because it may be dynamically unreached, in
> > > which case the program is valid and we can't reject it.
> >
> > I think this also explains why this is useful for optimization.
> >
> >  1. It is a code-size optimization
> >  2. By eliminating unreachable control flow, we can remove branches and
> tests that are not actual necessary
> >
> > int foo(int x) {
> >   if (x > 5) return 2*x;
> >   else if (x < 2) return 3 - x;
> > }
> >
> > That having been said, there are other ways to express these things, and
> the situation often represents an error. I'd be fine with requiring a
> special flag (-fallow-nonreturning-functions or whatever) in order to put
> the compiler is a truly confirming mode (similar to the situation with
> sized delete).
>
> Note that we already have a flag to trap on this: -fsanitize-trap=return.
> (You may also need -fsanitize=return, I don't remember.) That seems
> consistent with how we treat most other forms of UB.
>
> >  -Hal
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 at 15:05 David Blaikie < dblaikie at gmail.com >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jul 29, 2015 2:10 AM, "mats petersson" < mats at planetcatfish.com
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 28 July 2015 at 23:40, Marshall Clow < mclow.lists at gmail.com
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Sjoerd Meijer <
> > > >> >> sjoerd.meijer at arm.com > wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Hi,
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> In C++, the undefined behaviour of a missing return statements
> > > >> >>> for a non-void function results in not generating the
> > > >> >>> function epilogue (unreachable statement is inserted and the
> > > >> >>> return statement is optimised away). Consequently, the
> > > >> >>> runtime behaviour is that control is never properly returned
> > > >> >>> from this function and thus it starts executing “garbage
> > > >> >>> instructions”. As this is undefined behaviour, this is
> > > >> >>> perfectly fine and according to the spec, and a compile
> > > >> >>> warning for this missing return statement is issued. However,
> > > >> >>> in C, the behaviour is that a function epilogue is generated,
> > > >> >>> i.e. basically by returning uninitialised local variable.
> > > >> >>> Codes that rely on this are not beautiful pieces of code, i.e
> > > >> >>> are buggy, but it might just be okay if you for example have
> > > >> >>> a function that just initialises stuff (and the return value
> > > >> >>> is not checked, directly or indirectly); some one might argue
> > > >> >>> that not returning from that function might be a bit harsh.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I would not be one of those people.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Nor me.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> So this email is to probe if there would be strong resistance
> > > >> >>> to follow the C behaviour? I am not yet sure how, but would
> > > >> >>> perhaps a compromise be possible/acceptable to make the
> > > >> >>> undefined behaviour explicit and also generate the function
> > > >> >>> epilogue?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "undefined behavior" is exactly that.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You have no idea what is going to happen; there are no
> > > >> >> restrictions on what the code being executed can do.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "it just might be ok" means on a particular version of a
> > > >> >> particular compiler, on a particular architecture and OS, at a
> > > >> >> particular optimization level. Change any of those things, and
> > > >> >> you can change the behavior.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In fact, the "it works kind of as you expected" is the worst
> > > >> > kind of UB in my mind. UB that causes a crash, stops or other
> > > >> > "directly obvious that this is wrong" are MUCH easier to debug.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So make this particular kind of UB explicit by crashing or
> > > >> > stopping would be a good thing. Making it explicit by
> > > >> > "returning kind of nicely, but not correct return value" is
> > > >> > about the worst possible result.
> > > >>
> > > >> At -O0 clang emits a trap instruction, making it more explicit as
> > > >> you suggest. At higher optimization levels it just falls
> > > >> through/off.
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Mats
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> -- Marshall
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> >> cfe-dev mailing list
> > > >> >> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > > >> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> cfe-dev mailing list
> > > >> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cfe-dev mailing list
> > > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Hal Finkel
> > Assistant Computational Scientist
> > Leadership Computing Facility
> > Argonne National Laboratory
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150812/70878099/attachment-0001.html>