[Vm-dev] Removing UB to make SmallFloat handling gcc 4.9.2 -O2 compatible [WAS: first 64 bits windows VM Running]

[Nicolas Cellier]

2016-07-21 2:41 GMT+02:00 Andres Valloud <avalloud at smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>
:

>
>     Or better: eliminate Undefined Behavior which is most probably the
>>     cause of problems
>>
>
> This is a good start for a default debugging procedure.
>
> Note: i've successfully compiled Squeak stack spur 64 bits with gcc
>> 4.9.2 -02 and restored the correct behavior for SmallFloat:
>>     2.0*3.0 correctly answer 6.0 instead of 4.0...
>>
>> Why is memcpy less evil than pointer aliasing?
>> With pointer aliasing any other write into a long integer could modify
>> doubleResult.
>> This completely defeat optimization - the holy grail of C people, they
>> can't bother that FORTRAN compilers are faster than theirs ;). With
>> great wisdom they declared this construct as undefined behavior, giving
>> priority to optimization rather than backward compatibility or
>> programmers' intentions...
>> memcpy is less evil because it's localized (one shot).
>>
>
> The GCC manual warns of potential issues with memcpy(), and recommends
> using unions instead.  The union method worked on every HPS compilation
> environment, across multiple optimization levels.  Whenever I checked, the
> resulting assembly code was optimal.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#casting_and_optimization
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2003/08/11/0001.html
>
> Andres.
>

Thanks Andres.

The problem you cite about memcpy is because it might be defined as a
macro, and this restrict the possible constructs indeed
(No #if directive into macros in some old versions of compilers).
For VMMaker this is not a problem yet.
If it would be, we would see a compiler error, and would then workaround by
rephrasing the slang and avoiding such construct...
A compiler error is a lot easier to fix than an invisibly stricking UB
answering the unexpected result.

The usage of union for type-punning is indeed authorized and well defined -
at least in C99.
But it has been controversial.
See
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11957450/is-this-a-proper-usage-of-union
and
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11639947/is-type-punning-through-a-union-unspecified-in-c99-and-has-it-become-specified
especially the arcane comments about interpretation of the standard !

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20160721/05f0bb27/attachment.htm