From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org,
Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com>,
Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] compiler.h: add const_true()
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:18:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241113172939.747686-5-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241113172939.747686-4-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
__builtin_constant_p() is known for not always being able to produce
constant expression [1] which led to the introduction of
__is_constexpr() [2]. Because of its dependency on
__builtin_constant_p(), statically_true() suffers from the same
issues.
For example:
void foo(int a)
{
/* fail on GCC */
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(statically_true(a));
/* fail on both clang and GCC */
static char arr[statically_true(a) ? 1 : 2];
}
For the same reasons why __is_constexpr() was created to cover
__builtin_constant_p() edge cases, __is_constexpr() can be used to
resolve statically_true() limitations.
Note that, somehow, GCC is not always able to fold this:
__is_constexpr(x) && (x)
It is OK in BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO() but not in array declarations nor in
static_assert():
void bar(int a)
{
/* success */
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__is_constexpr(a) && (a));
/* fail on GCC */
static char arr[__is_constexpr(a) && (a) ? 1 : 2];
/* fail on GCC */
static_assert(__is_constexpr(a) && (a));
}
Encapsulating the expression in a __builtin_choose_expr() switch
resolves all these failed tests.
Define a new const_true() macro which, by making use of the
__builtin_choose_expr() and __is_constexpr(x) combo, always produces a
constant expression.
It should be noted that statically_true() is the only one able to fold
tautologic expressions in which at least one on the operands is not a
constant expression. For example:
statically_true(true || var)
statically_true(var == var)
statically_true(var * 0 + 1)
statically_true(!(var * 8 % 4))
always evaluates to true, whereas all of these would be false under
const_true() if var is not a constant expression [3].
For this reason, usage of const_true() be should the exception.
Reflect in the documentation that const_true() is less powerful and
that statically_true() is the overall preferred solution.
[1] __builtin_constant_p cannot resolve to const when optimizing
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19449
[2] commit 3c8ba0d61d04 ("kernel.h: Retain constant expression output for max()/min()")
Link: https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/3c8ba0d61d04
[3] https://godbolt.org/z/c61PMxqbK
Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
---
Above examples, and a bit more:
https://godbolt.org/z/11xnxfx3P
---
include/linux/compiler.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
index 4d4e23b6e3e7..f9d660b63765 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -308,6 +308,28 @@ static inline void *offset_to_ptr(const int *off)
*/
#define statically_true(x) (__builtin_constant_p(x) && (x))
+/*
+ * Similar to statically_true() but produces a constant expression
+ *
+ * To be used in conjunction with macros, such as BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(),
+ * which require their input to be a constant expression and for which
+ * statically_true() would otherwise fail.
+ *
+ * This is a trade-off: const_true() requires all its operands to be
+ * compile time constants. Else, it would always returns false even on
+ * the most trivial cases like:
+ *
+ * true || non_const_var
+ *
+ * On the opposite, statically_true() is able to fold more complex
+ * tautologies and will return true on expressions such as:
+ *
+ * !(non_const_var * 8 % 4)
+ *
+ * For the general case, statically_true() is better.
+ */
+#define const_true(x) __builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(x), x, false)
+
/*
* This is needed in functions which generate the stack canary, see
* arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c::start_secondary() for an example.
--
2.45.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-13 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-13 17:18 [PATCH v4 0/2] add const_true() to simplify GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-13 17:18 ` Vincent Mailhol [this message]
2024-11-13 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] compiler.h: add const_true() Yury Norov
2024-12-30 18:32 ` Yury Norov
2024-12-31 4:58 ` Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-17 17:42 ` David Laight
2024-11-17 18:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-17 19:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-17 19:05 ` David Laight
2024-11-17 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-17 19:23 ` David Laight
2024-11-17 20:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-17 22:38 ` David Laight
2024-11-17 22:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-18 3:22 ` Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-18 9:27 ` David Laight
2024-11-18 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-11-13 17:18 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] linux/bits.h: simplify GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-17 17:24 ` David Laight
2024-11-17 19:45 ` David Laight
2024-11-18 1:14 ` Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-18 1:12 ` Vincent Mailhol
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241113172939.747686-5-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr \
--to=mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox