Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C

From	Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C
Date	2023-01-22 07:04 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<23-01-070@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <23-01-031@comp.compilers> <23-01-041@comp.compilers> <23-01-062@comp.compilers> <23-01-065@comp.compilers> <23-01-067@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2023-01-20, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Alexei A. Frounze <alexfrunews@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> I believe in a case like this a modern C/C++ compiler reasons that x must be
>> less than the maximum representable value and it generates code according
>> to this, possibly removing dead code that depends on x being the maximum
>> representable value. If the compiler's assumption that x is less than the
>> maximum is wrong, it's perfectly fine, it's UB, any "broken" code generated
>> is allowed.
>
> There are cases when compilers don't even use this knowledge.
>
> Take the function
>
> int add (int a, int b)
> {
>     return a+b;
> }
>
> on an instruction set architecture which has only 64-bit
> arithmetic, such as POWER.  This is translated by gcc,
> with optimization, to
>
>         add 3,3,4
>         extsw 3,3
>         blr
>
> (which is an addition followed by a sign extension).  The POWER ABi
> specifies that all values passed in registers are sign-extended,
> so the content of a register has the same value independent of
> the width of the signed integer it is being considered as.
>
> So, the compiler would be within its right to _not_ extend the sign
> of the result, because it could assume that no overflow occurs.

Indeed. If overflow occurs, then there could be an unexpected results if
the, say, result of the addition is converted to a 64 bit type.

Suppose that a 32 to 64 conversion is actually a no-op, because the
register values are assumed to be sign-extended, like the ABI says.

Then, say a and b are positives values that fit into the 32 bit
range, such that the a + b sum does not; it wraps negative
in 32 bits.

The programmer might thus expect expect (long) (a + b) to be
that wrapped negative value.

But since the addition is done in 64 bits, it doesn't overflow;
there is a positive 64 bit result. If conversion to long is a noop,
a positive value of long will result, as if the expression were
(long) a + (long) b.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Lucian Popescu" <lucic71@ctrl-c.club> - 2023-01-05 10:05 +0000
  RE: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Nuno Lopes" <nuno.lopes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> - 2023-01-05 10:24 +0000
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 18:06 +0000
    Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-05 16:22 -0800
      Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-06 08:41 +0000
      Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 16:12 +0100
        Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-06 10:33 -0800
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-06 11:39 -0800
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 12:10 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-13 20:46 +0000
        Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 10:14 +0000
          Re: Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 10:46 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-11 09:34 +0000
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-12 05:21 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 12:21 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-12 21:50 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-15 04:17 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 14:20 +0100
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-18 13:14 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-18 21:14 +0100
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-18 21:10 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-20 10:45 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 13:54 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-23 18:50 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in Fortran "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2023-01-26 21:12 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in Fortran gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-26 17:50 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 21:18 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-20 20:42 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-21 11:54 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-22 09:56 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-22 07:04 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2023-01-23 17:12 +0000
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 17:32 +0100
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-10 15:57 -0800
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 14:40 +0100
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-11 16:09 -0800
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2023-01-28 10:35 -0500
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-06 07:47 +0000
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 09:10 +0000

csiph-web