[cfe-dev] the "computed goto" problem

[De Azevedo Piovezan, Felipe via cfe-dev]

Thanks for the input!

I’ve filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43546
There are other computed goto reported bugs, but they don’t seem related to this.

From: James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:01 AM
To: De Azevedo Piovezan, Felipe <felipe.de.azevedo.piovezan at intel.com>
Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] the "computed goto" problem

Definitely a bug.

Looks like a bug in the combination of block addresses, constexpr, and lambda functions. Note that the "labels" global value gets duplicated -- one for the function it's defined in, and then a copy for the inner lambda function. The copy for the lambda got the block references broken, by attempting to change the function the block is defined in, to the lambda. Obviously, those blocks don't actually exist within the lambda function, so that's busted!

@__const._Z22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecode.labels = private unnamed_addr constant [3 x i8*] [i8* blockaddress(@_Z22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecode, %9), i8* blockaddress(@_Z22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecode, %13), i8* blockaddress(@_Z22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecode, %17)], align 16
@__const._Z22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecode.labels.1 = private unnamed_addr constant [3 x i8*] [i8* blockaddress(@"_ZZ22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecodeENK3$_0clEv", <badref>), i8* blockaddress(@"_ZZ22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecodeENK3$_0clEv", <badref>), i8* blockaddress(@"_ZZ22run_with_computed_gotoPK8bytecodeENK3$_0clEv", <badref>)], align 16

If you want a workaround, I suggest not using the lambda. Changing it to e.g.
  #define next() labels[*instructions++]
should be fine.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:48 AM De Azevedo Piovezan, Felipe via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Hello cfe,

This year at CppCon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cPU1NdsgDQ), there was a funny talk about the use of what they called a "computed goto".
I was playing around with the idea, and there might be something incorrect about the code generated by clang when constexpr is involved (starting with 9.0).

The idea is this: the address of a bunch of labels are taken and stored into a table:

  enum bytecode : int8_t { add1, add2, halt };

  constexpr void* labels[] = {
    [bytecode::add1] = &&add1_label,
    [bytecode::add2] = &&add2_label,
    [bytecode::halt] = &&halt_label,
  };

  //labels defined here...

However, this is the IR generated with -O0 -emit-llvm:

  @labels = private unnamed_addr constant [3 x i8*] [i8* blockaddress(@"label1", <badref>), i8* blockaddress(@"label2", <badref>), i8* blockaddress(@"label3", <badref>)], align 16

Note the badrefs! Also, we generate a basic block with no predecessors:

  12: ; No predecessors!
  indirectbr i8* undef, [label <badref>, label <badref>, label <badref>]

As such, as soon as we start optimizing, the whole function is optimized away.
If we remove constexpr, however, everything seems sane. Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/Anc9EI

Any insights on what might be happening here? I suspect a lot of people will play around with this construction just "for fun" and will encounter this.

--
Felipe

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20191003/f73a0251/attachment.html>