Bart Hartgers wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 April 2006 13:03:34 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 13:57 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 April 2006 10:27:18 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>>>> what I would like is kfree to become an inline wrapper that does the
>>>>>>> null check inline, that way gcc can optimize it out (and it will in 4.1
>>>>>>> with the VRP pass) if gcc can prove it's not NULL.
>>>> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 12:05 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
>>>>>> How well can gcc optimize this case?
>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>> if you deref'd the pointer it'll optimize it away (assuming a new enough
>>>>> gcc, like 4.1)
>>>> Here are the numbers for allyesconfig on my setup.
>>>>
>>>> Pekka
>>>>
>>>> gcc version 3.4.5 (Gentoo 3.4.5-r1, ssp-3.4.5-1.0, pie-8.7.9)
>>> this is an ancient gcc without VRP so yeah the growth is expected ;)
>> In other words, we shouldn't do this as long as most users don't have
>> gcc 4.1 or higher installed. So this is somewhat pointless at the
>> moment.
>>
>> Still, if you could respin this with gcc 4.1 and post the numbers,
>> Pekka, that would be quite interesting.
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>
> What about this:
>
> static inline void my_kfree( void *ptr )
> {
> if (__builtin_constant_p(ptr!=NULL)) {
> if (ptr!=NULL)
> my_fast_free(ptr); /* skips NULL check */
> } else {
> my_checking_free(ptr); /* does a NULL check */
> }
> }
>
> That would skip the free when ptr is known to be NULL, and skip the
> equal to NULL check if it is known to be not NULL, and do what happened
> before otherwise. In other words, it is never worse than what we have now.
>
> Attached is a small testcase in C and the resulting assembly. Note that
> my compiler doesn't catch the "not equal to zero" case, but 4.1 is
> supposed to do this.
>
> Groeten,
> Bart
>
Sorry about replying to my own mail, but I discovered that at least "gcc
(GCC) 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)" does not seem to combine the
delete-null-pointer optimisation with the builtin_constant test. The
compiler is happy to eliminate ptr==NULL tests, but does not consider
the expression (ptr==NULL) constant! I managed to hack around this.
See the attached code, and:
bart@gum15:~> gcc -DCASE_A -m32 -O3 -S -o testje-a.S testje.c
bart@gum15:~> gcc -DCASE_B -m32 -O3 -S -o testje-b.S testje.c
bart@gum15:~> diff -u testje-a.S testje-b.S
--- testje-a.S 2006-04-26 14:57:50.000000000 +0200
+++ testje-b.S 2006-04-26 14:57:53.000000000 +0200
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
addl $4, %esp
popl %ebx
popl %ebp
- jmp my_fast_free
+ jmp my_slow_free
.size test, .-test
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
Anyway, CASE_A produces optimal code for gcc 4.1, and gcc 4.0 produces
identical code in both cases.
Groeten,
Bart
--
Bart Hartgers - TUE Eindhoven - http://plasimo.phys.tue.nl/bart/contact/
#include <stddef.h>
extern void my_fast_free(void *);
extern void my_checking_free(void *);
static inline void my_kfree( void *ptr )
{
#ifdef CASE_A
register int is_null = 0;
if (ptr == NULL)
is_null = 1;
if (__builtin_constant_p(is_null)) {
#else /* CASE_B */
if (__builtin_constant_p(ptr==NULL)) {
#endif
if (ptr != NULL)
my_fast_free(ptr);
} else {
my_slow_free(ptr);
}
}
void test( int *bla )
{
char *hello = NULL;
my_kfree(hello);
my_kfree(bla);
*bla = 1;
my_kfree(bla);
}
.file "testje.c"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl test
.type test, @function
test:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
pushl %ebx
subl $4, %esp
movl 8(%ebp), %ebx
movl %ebx, (%esp)
call my_slow_free
movl $1, (%ebx)
movl %ebx, 8(%ebp)
addl $4, %esp
popl %ebx
popl %ebp
jmp my_fast_free
.size test, .-test
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
