From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754064AbdCBOtJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:49:09 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34437 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751531AbdCBOsL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:48:11 -0500
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:46:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings
Message-ID: <20170302144639.GA8969@gmail.com>
References: <CAK8P3a3C2YMDEGFydAusyuXs-HAuFt80P=H8ar+Vu3mDCpNtuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170301144008.3ocnbvry4sbl3cnu@treble>
 <CAK8P3a0BUDCUE7qT=tAh4U2LNOqHUBDadRJXsbJMT3cX3hnVnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170301165355.w2kmdmbql2f2ouzg@treble>
 <CAK8P3a29bVFUqtZyvWBMgYvfGJFktUSL8_bY-oXM_po5pemHPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170302010342.fshczxfiiz3txgac@treble>
 <20170302063139.GA594@gmail.com>
 <20170302124926.47vfba4q6igkirzj@treble>
 <20170302134629.GA13468@gmail.com>
 <20170302140830.6cryk3uepqnrrqef@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170302140830.6cryk3uepqnrrqef@treble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > > Well, technically an invalid opcode is shorter code than generating an 
> > > > (integer) division by zero exception, right?
> > > 
> > > What does that matter if it's the wrong behavior?
> > 
> > Well, both terminate the program, and it's obvious if you look at it with a 
> > debugger what happened, right?
> 
> If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion :-)

Touche ;-)

> The only thing obvious to me was that gcc mysteriously removed a bunch of code 
> and replaced it with a 'ud2' instruction in the middle of the function for no 
> apparent reason.

I don't know what their motivation was, but if it's not a bug, if it was done 
intentionally, then I'd guess it's roughly the argument I made: in simple 
testcases it can be argued to be a code size improvement, plus it's probably 
allowed by the letter of the compiler standards (program termination behavior is 
notoriously platform dependent and thus vaguely specified) - but for real-life 
code I very much agree that it's a step backward in generated code quality...

Thanks,

	Ingo