From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org,
Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] compiler.h: add const_true()
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 10:32:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z3LnNBWn8dHZIo7E@yury-ThinkPad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZzT1wZ-WQi8zuwqG@yury-ThinkPad>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:53:55AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 02:18:32AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> > __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>
>
> For the series:
>
> Reviewed-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>
> If no objections, I'll move it with my tree.
This is already in my branch, but there was a discussion after I pulled
it. Can you guys tell me what is your conclusion on that? Should I
keep it in the branch, or drop?
Thanks,
Yury
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-30 18:32 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 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] compiler.h: add const_true() Vincent Mailhol
2024-11-13 18:53 ` Yury Norov
2024-12-30 18:32 ` Yury Norov [this message]
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=Z3LnNBWn8dHZIo7E@yury-ThinkPad \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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