[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230829074854.7031-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 09:48:54 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stefan Haberland <sth@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jan Höppner <hoeppner@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/dasd: fix string length handling
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 03:51:00PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 05:18:37PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Heiko Carstens
> > > Sent: 28 August 2023 16:32
> > > if (strlen(uid.vduit) > 0)
> >
> > Does the compiler know enough to optimise that brain-dead test?
> >
>
> For the purposes of skipping diagnostics, no; clang performs semantic
> analysis BEFORE optimization (which is handled by LLVM). As such, clang
> will produce diagnostics on dead code.
>
> Partly because LLVM isn't very ergonomic at emitting diagnostics from
> the backend, partly because Clang code owner and developers don't want
> clang to emit diagnostics dependent on optimization level.
>
> I disagree with my compatriots, and you can read more thoughts here:
> https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-improving-clangs-middle-and-back-end-diagnostics/69261?u=nickdesaulniers
Maybe I misunderstand what you write above, however clang (latest+greatest)
does indeed optimize the strlen() away and generates code which only tests
if uid.vduit[0] is zero or not.
Unlike gcc, which does not optimize this away and which uses the strlen()
inline assembly provided via string.h...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists