On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:48:54AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, February 05, 2015 04:22:23 PM Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:21:45AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 05, 2015 08:48:33 AM Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > It is fixed (in the proper meaning of the word, not like worked > > > > > > around, > > > > > > covered by paper) by the patch at the end of the mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have a story trying to enable much less ambitious option > > > > > > -fno-strict-overflow, see r259045 and the revert in r259422. I do > > > > > > not > > > > > > see other way than try one more time. Too many places in kernel > > > > > > depend on the correctly wrapping 2-complement arithmetic, among > > > > > > others > > > > > > are callweel and scheduler. > > > > > > > > Rather than depending on a compiler option, wouldn't it be better/more > > > > robust to change ticks to unsigned, which has specified wrapping > > > > behavior? > > > > > > Yes, but non-trivial. It's also not limited to ticks. Since the compiler > > > knows when it would apply these optimizations, it would be nice if it > > > could > > > warn instead (GCC apparently has a warning, but clang does not). Having > > > people do a manual audit of every signed integer expression in the tree > > > will take a long time. > > > > I think I misunderstood the problem as being limited to ticks, > > which is probably only one symptom of a fundamental change in behaviour > > of the compiler. > > Still, it might be worthwhile start looking at ints that ought to be > > implemented as u_int > > I actually agree, I just think we are stuck with -fwrapv in the interval, but > it's probably not a short interval. I think converting ticks to unsigned > would be a good first start. In principle MIT's KINT tool should help here. Unfortunatly, it's based on LLVM 3.1 and appears to be unmaintained. -- Brooks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:55 UTC