[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200703145151.GG9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 07:51:51 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 03:25:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The prototype for GCC is here: https://github.com/AKG001/gcc/
> >
> > Thanks! Those test cases are somewhat over qualified though:
> >
> > static volatile _Atomic (TYPE) * _Dependent_ptr a; \
>
> One question though; since its a qualifier, and we've recently spend a
> whole lot of effort to strip qualifiers in say READ_ONCE(), how does,
> and how do we want, this qualifier to behave.
Dereferencing a _Dependent_ptr pointer gives you something that is not
_Dependent_ptr, unless the declaration was like this:
_Dependent_ptr _Atomic (TYPE) * _Dependent_ptr a;
And if I recall correctly, the current state is that assigning a
_Dependent_ptr variable to a non-_Dependent_ptr variable strips this
marking (though the thought was to be able to ask for a warning).
So, yes, it would be nice to be able to explicitly strip the
_Dependent_ptr, perhaps the kill_dependency() macro, which is already
in the C standard.
> C++ has very convenient means of manipulating qualifiers, so it's not
> much of a problem there, but for C it is, as we've found, really quite
> cumbersome. Even with _Generic() we can't manipulate individual
> qualifiers afaict.
Fair point, and in C++ this is a templated class, at least in the same
sense that std::atomic<> is a templated class.
But in this case, would kill_dependency do what you want?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
