Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #1751

Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?

Show key headers only | View raw

On 06/09/2016 03:15, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2016-09-05, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> I suspect [TCC] just compiles switch as an if-else chain. Which might
>> explain why duplicate case labels are ignored if that conversion is done
>> at at early stage.
>>
>> (Because a duplicate condition in an if-else chain is fine. For a
>> jump-table of course, a duplicate label is ambiguous so can't be allowed.)
>
> A duplicate condition in an if-else chain is unreachable code, which is
> probably a bug.
>
>    if (foo) {
>      ...
>    } else if (foo) {
>      /* unreachable */
>    } else if (bar) {
>      ...
>    }

It's not necessarily unreachable. For example:

  if (foo()) { ...}
  elsif if (foo()) { ... }

foo() could return false the first time and true the second time.

In general detecting duplication conditions for if-else can involve
comparing expressions of arbitrary complexity, and it can be harder to
determine if they will always yield the same value.

(Unreachable code can also be made reachable by inserting a label with a
goto from elsewhere.)

> Duplicate cases are a constraint violation in ISO C, requiring a
> diagnostic.

> A duplicate label can also be just as "fine". Look, you can build a jump
> table, and then just fill it without caring about duplicates:
>
>   case 42:
>   ...
>   case 42:
>
> No problem: just write to jumptable[42] twice, letting it the most
> recently established address overrule the previous one.

Some duplicate cases might be fine:

  case 10: case 10:

as they both end up at the same place (and the 10s can be hidden behind
different macros or enums). But an error is still reported.

> Duplicate case label code can still be reachable, making the bugs
> potentially more interesting:
>
>   case 42: // suppose this is used
>     ...
>     break;
>   case 19:
>     ...
>     /* fallthrough */
>   case 42: // this isn't used, but fallthrough makes it reachable

That's another way for duplicate cases to be meaningful, except that you
can't control which of the case 42s is put into the jump table. Unless
(in this case) you only use the first, so writing to jumptable[42] once
not twice.

But the sensible thing for switch is to report all duplicates (with a
possible concession when labels are at the same location, although that
could mask an error).

--
Bartc

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

Thread

Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-02 03:01 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-05 00:20 +0200
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:26 -0700
      Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-09 12:31 +0100
        Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 16:06 +0000
        Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-10 00:38 +0200
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Nemo <nemo@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-04 18:32 -0400
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-04 23:48 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-05 13:19 +0100
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:15 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-06 21:35 +0100
        Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-08 11:58 -0400
          Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-08 22:54 +0000
            Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 00:51 -0400
              Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 06:05 +0000
                Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 14:02 -0400
                Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 19:57 +0000
      Re: duplicate cases, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:01 +0100
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2016-09-05 20:06 +0200
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:22 -0700
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:18 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 17:00 -0700
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-12 18:42 +0000
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 22:37 +0100
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-13 17:35 +0000
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-14 18:14 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:29 -0700
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-27 05:40 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 16:36 -0700
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 18:16 +0100
          Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-29 14:03 +0100
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-29 22:57 -0400
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 05:03 +0200
              Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:00 +0100
                Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 20:15 +0200
                Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-01 22:17 +0100
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:28 +0100
              Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 22:49 +0100
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 21:24 -0400
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 01:01 -0400
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-29 02:55 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com - 2016-09-29 05:30 -0600
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-30 10:13 +0000

csiph-web