Re: [PATCH 0/4] -ffreestanding/-fno-builtin-* patches

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 2020-08-18 13:58, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:27 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:24 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:13:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:03 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying "change the semantics", nor am I saying that playing
>>>>> whack-a-mole *for a limited time* is unreasonable. But I would like to go back
>>>>> to the compiler authors and get them to implement such a #pragma: "this
>>>>> freestanding implementation *does* support *this specific library function*,
>>>>> and you are free to call it."
>>>>
>>>> I'd much rather just see the library functions as builtins that always
>>>> do the right thing (with the fallback being "just call the standard
>>>> function").
>>>>
>>>> IOW, there's nothing wrong with -ffreestanding if you then also have
>>>> __builtin_memcpy() etc, and they do the sane compiler optimizations
>>>> for memcpy().
>>>>
>>>> What we want to avoid is the compiler making *assumptions* based on
>>>> standard names, because we may implement some of those things
>>>> differently.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -ffreestanding as it stands today does have __builtin_memcpy and
>>> friends. But you need to then use #define memcpy __builtin_memcpy etc,
>>> which is messy and also doesn't fully express what you want. #pragma, or
>>> even just allowing -fbuiltin-foo options would be useful.
> 
> I do really like the idea of -fbuiltin-foo.  For example, you'd specify:
> 
> -ffreestanding -fbuiltin-bcmp
> 
> as an example. `-ffreestanding` would opt you out of ALL libcall
> optimizations, `-fbuiltin-bcmp` would then opt you back in to
> transforms that produce bcmp.  That way you're informing the compiler
> more precisely about the environment you'd be targeting.  It feels
> symmetric to existing `-fno-` flags (clang makes -f vs -fno- pretty
> easy when there is such symmetry).  And it's already convention that
> if you specify multiple conflicting compiler flags, then the latter
> one specified "wins."  In that sense, turning back on specific
> libcalls after disabling the rest looks more ergonomic to me.
> 
> Maybe Eli or David have thoughts on why that may or may not be as
> ergonomic or possible to implement as I imagine?
> 

I would prefer this to be a #pragma for a header file, rather than
having a very long command line for everything...

	-hpa