do not ignore attribute 'noreturn'...
PATCH 1/1 do not ignore attribute 'noreturn'...
Hello,
enclosed is a simple patch adding support for attribute 'noreturn' to the parser. The enhancement makes it possible to optimize walk through CFG and thus help us to fight with the state explosion. The benefit is demonstrated on a simple real-world example.
Generated CFG before patch:
http://dudka.cz/devel/html/slsparse-before/slplug.c-handle_stmt_assign.svg
Generated CFG after patch:
http://dudka.cz/devel/html/slsparse-after/slplug.c-handle_stmt_assign.svg
It's one of the key features I am currently missing in SPARSE in contrast to gcc used as parser. Thanks in advance for considering it!
Kamil
From 892f19915cbcbe26b3a7ad2c3baf1a1420f3c954 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Dudka <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:49:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] do not ignore attribute 'noreturn'...
... and thus make it possible to optimize walk through CFG.
--- parse.c | 4 ++-- symbol.h | 4 +++- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
parse.c +2 -2
@@ -480,8 +480,8 @@ static struct init_keyword { { "const", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, { "__const", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, { "__const__", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, - { "noreturn", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, - { "__noreturn__", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, + { "noreturn", NS_KEYWORD, MOD_NORETURN, .op = &attr_mod_op }, + { "__noreturn__", NS_KEYWORD, MOD_NORETURN, .op = &attr_mod_op }, { "no_instrument_function", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, { "__no_instrument_function__", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op }, { "sentinel", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &ignore_attr_op },
symbol.h +3 -1
@@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ struct symbol {#define MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED 0x40000000#define MOD_BITWISE 0x80000000 +#define MOD_NORETURN 0x100000000 +#define MOD_NONLOCAL (MOD_EXTERN | MOD_TOPLEVEL)#define MOD_STORAGE (MOD_AUTO | MOD_REGISTER | MOD_STATIC | MOD_EXTERN | MOD_INLINE | MOD_TOPLEVEL)#define MOD_SIGNEDNESS (MOD_SIGNED | MOD_UNSIGNED | MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED)
@@ -223,7 +225,7 @@ struct symbol {#define MOD_SIZE (MOD_CHAR | MOD_SHORT | MOD_LONG | MOD_LONGLONG)#define MOD_IGNORE (MOD_TOPLEVEL | MOD_STORAGE | MOD_ADDRESSABLE | \ MOD_ASSIGNED | MOD_USERTYPE | MOD_ACCESSED | MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED) -#define MOD_PTRINHERIT (MOD_VOLATILE | MOD_CONST | MOD_NODEREF | MOD_STORAGE) +#define MOD_PTRINHERIT (MOD_VOLATILE | MOD_CONST | MOD_NODEREF | MOD_STORAGE | MOD_NORETURN)/* Current parsing/evaluation function */
Signature · 1 line
1.6.4.1
Christopher Li
maintainerQuoted 5 lines · Kamil Dudka
enclosed is a simple patch adding support for attribute 'noreturn' to the parser. The enhancement makes it possible to optimize walk through CFG and thus help us to fight with the state explosion. The benefit is demonstrated on a simple real-world example.
Quoted 8 lines
Generated CFG before patch:
http://dudka.cz/devel/html/slsparse-before/slplug.c-handle_stmt_assign.svgGenerated CFG after patch:
http://dudka.cz/devel/html/slsparse-after/slplug.c-handle_stmt_assign.svgIt's one of the key features I am currently missing in SPARSE in contrast to gcc used as parser. Thanks in advance for considering it!
Yes, no return is kind of useful. I think we need to do some thing about the MOD_XXX eventually. It is very easy to run out of bits there.
Thanks for the patch. Applied.
Chris
Christopher Li
maintainerQuoted 3 lines · Christopher Li
Yes, no return is kind of useful. I think we need to do some thing about the
MOD_XXXeventually. It is very easy to run out of bits there.
Ah, the MOD_NORETURN is bigger than size of long in 32 bit systems. I just get a few warning from GCC.
I just relocate the MOD_NORETURN bits.
Chris
symbol.h +1 -1
@@ -214,10 +214,10 @@ struct symbol {#define MOD_SAFE 0x8000000 // non-null/non-trapping pointer#define MOD_USERTYPE 0x10000000 +#define MOD_NORETURN 0x20000000#define MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED 0x40000000#define MOD_BITWISE 0x80000000 -#define MOD_NORETURN 0x100000000#define MOD_NONLOCAL (MOD_EXTERN | MOD_TOPLEVEL)#define MOD_STORAGE (MOD_AUTO | MOD_REGISTER | MOD_STATIC | MOD_EXTERN | MOD
Quoted 8 lines · On Monday 14 of September 2009 19:27:40 Christopher Li wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Christopher Li
Yes, no return is kind of useful. I think we need to do some thing about the
MOD_XXXeventually. It is very easy to run out of bits there.Ah, the
MOD_NORETURNis bigger than size of long in 32 bit systems. I just get a few warning from GCC.I just relocate the
MOD_NORETURNbits.
Thanks! It makes sense to me.
As for the long term solution, I don't think it's possible without breaking the current API/ABI. What about using a bitfield instead? I can see it solved this way in <gcc/tree.h>.
Kamil
Christopher Li
maintainerQuoted 3 lines · Kamil Dudka
As for the long term solution, I don't think it's possible without breaking the current API/ABI. What about using a bitfield instead? I can see it solved this way in <
gcc/tree.h>.
I am actually not afraid of breaking current API/ABI because there is not enough sparse user application to worry about. Just recompile the apps should be fine. Please warn me if any one disagree.
As for long term, here is my plan, it will go will with Al's replace same type with same type pointer plan as well.
We need to have a different structure to support the extended attributes for ctype. Current "contexts" and "as" should go into that extended attribute as well. Then ctype should have one pointer for extended attributes. For most common case, the extended attribute pointer is just NULL.
Because the extended attribute pointer is possibles to be shared between different ctypes. It is not allow to modify the extended attribute struct from ctype directly. Instead it should replace with a new one.
We can even hash the extended attribute struct so same attribute struct will have the same pointer, just like ident. That will make comparing attribute is the same much easier.
I try it before, it is hard to do because current code does implicit assign for the ctype.
Chris
Quoted 25 lines · On Monday 14 of September 2009 19:55:49 Christopher Li wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · Kamil Dudka
As for the long term solution, I don't think it's possible without breaking the current API/ABI. What about using a bitfield instead? I can see it solved this way in <
gcc/tree.h>.I am actually not afraid of breaking current API/ABI because there is not enough sparse user application to worry about. Just recompile the apps should be fine. Please warn me if any one disagree.
As for long term, here is my plan, it will go will with Al's replace same type with same type pointer plan as well.
We need to have a different structure to support the extended attributes for ctype. Current "contexts" and "as" should go into that extended attribute as well. Then ctype should have one pointer for extended attributes. For most common case, the extended attribute pointer is just NULL.
Because the extended attribute pointer is possibles to be shared between different ctypes. It is not allow to modify the extended attribute struct from ctype directly. Instead it should replace with a new one. We can even hash the extended attribute struct so same attribute struct will have the same pointer, just like ident. That will make comparing attribute is the same much easier.
Quoted 2 lines
I try it before, it is hard to do because current code does implicit assign for the ctype.
It sounds like a tough challenge to me :-)
I am playing with the SPARSE API now. Any chance to pass in a unique ID to each symbol? (as equivalent to DECL_UID from <gcc/tree.h>) I can of course manage an ptr/ID mapping at application level. I am only curious if this is possible to place directly into SPARSE, so that other apps could gain from it. Please let me know if such functionality is already implemented in SPARSE.
Kamil
Christopher Li
maintainerQuoted 5 lines · Kamil Dudka
It sounds like a tough challenge to me :-)
I am playing with the SPARSE API now. Any chance to pass in a unique ID to each symbol? (as equivalent to
DECL_UIDfrom <gcc/tree.h>) I can of course manage an ptr/ID mapping at application level. I am only curious if this is
Can you clarify why do you need to use the UID instead of the pointer of symbol? One reason I can see is that if you want to dump the AST tree into objects on disk. Other application can read it back and load into memory. If the symbol already exist in the memory, you should be able to use pointer directly.
BTW, I have code to dump most of the struct into disk already. I think I send to the list before. Of course I can create a branch for it. Reading is not completed yet.
Chris
Quoted 5 lines · On Monday 14 of September 2009 22:47:40 Christopher Li wrote:
Can you clarify why do you need to use the UID instead of the pointer of symbol? One reason I can see is that if you want to dump the AST tree into objects on disk. Other application can read it back and load into memory. If the symbol already exist in the memory, you should be able to use pointer directly.
The only reason (for now) is that I already use them with the gcc plug-in and the code_listener interace is based on them. I don't think it *needs* to be implemented in SPARSE since the workaround is easy. I've only raised the idea in hope such enumeration might be generally useful.
Adding Petr Peringer to CC. He came with UID idea to our project and might be able to give us better clarification for that approach.
Quoted 3 lines
BTW, I have code to dump most of the struct into disk already. I think I send to the list before. Of course I can create a branch for it. Reading is not completed yet.
Thanks! Good to know something like that is available. But I don't think our project can gain from this functionality right now.
Kamil