Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:22:23 +0100
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Subject:   Re: PSA: If you run -current, beware!
Message-ID:  <20150205152223.GA59664@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
In-Reply-To: <2613155.3ZBxDvY16q@ralph.baldwin.cx>
References:  <8089702.oYScRm8BTN@overcee.wemm.org> <2509923.ondFvsFdql@overcee.wemm.org> <CA%2BhQ2%2BiVE53PJs0noc_SPHpwDZVLX-tHpgYmzO9tGzJzDXwXWg@mail.gmail.com> <2613155.3ZBxDvY16q@ralph.baldwin.cx>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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

cheers
luigi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150205152223.GA59664>