Re: Re[2]: [PATCH] fork_init: fix division by zero

[David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>]

Yuri Tikhonov <yur@emcraft.com> wrote:

>  Here we believe in preprocessor: since all PAGE_SIZE, 8, and 
> THREAD_SIZE are the constants we expect it will calculate this.

The preprocessor shouldn't be calculating this.  I believe it will _only_
calculate expressions for #if.  In the situation you're referring to, it
should perform a substitution and nothing more.  The preprocessor doesn't
necessarily know how to handle the types involved.

In any case, there's an easy way to find out: you can ask the compiler to give
you the result of running the source through the preprocessor only.  For
instance, if you run this:

	#define PAGE_SIZE 4096
	#define THREAD_SIZE 8192
	unsigned long mempages;
	unsigned long jump(void)
	{
		unsigned long max_threads;
		max_threads = mempages * PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE);
		return max_threads;
	}

through "gcc -E", you get:

	# 1 "calc.c"
	# 1 "<built-in>"
	# 1 "<command line>"
	# 1 "calc.c"
	unsigned long mempages;
	unsigned long jump(void)
	{
	 unsigned long max_threads;
	 max_threads = mempages * 4096 / (8 * 8192);
	 return max_threads;
	}


>  In any case, adding braces as follows probably would be better:
> 
> +     max_threads = mempages * (PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE));

I think you mean brackets, not braces '{}'.

>  Right ?

Definitely not.

I added this function to the above:

	unsigned long alt(void)
	{
		unsigned long max_threads;
		max_threads = mempages * (PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE));
		return max_threads;
	}

and ran it through "gcc -S -O2" for x86_64:

	jump:
		movq    mempages(%rip), %rax
		salq    $12, %rax
		shrq    $16, %rax
		ret
	alt:
		xorl    %eax, %eax
		ret

Note the difference?  In jump(), x86_64 first multiplies mempages by 4096, and
_then_ divides by 8*8192.

In alt(), it just returns 0 because the compiler realised that you're
multiplying by 0.

If you're going to bracket the expression, it must be:

		max_threads = (mempages * PAGE_SIZE) / (8 * THREAD_SIZE);

which should be superfluous.

>  E.g. here is the result from this line as produced by cross-gcc 
> 4.2.2:
> 
>         lis     r9,0
>         rlwinm  r29,r29,2,16,29
>         stw     r29,0(r9)
> 
>  As you see - only rotate-left, i.e. multiplication to the constant.

Ummm...  On powerpc, I believe rotate-left would be a division as it does the
bit-numbering and the bit direction the opposite way to more familiar CPUs
such as x86.

David