Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:57:12 -0400
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?RMOhdmlkIEJvbHZhbnNrw70=?= <david.bolvansky@gmail.com>,
        Eli Friedman <efriedma@quicinc.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Vamshi K Sthambamkadi <vamshi.k.sthambamkadi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] -ffreestanding/-fno-builtin-* patches
Message-ID: <20200821195712.GB1475504@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <CAHk-=wiPeRQU_5JXCN0TLoW-xHZHp7dmrhx0wyXUSKxiCxE02Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200818202407.GA3143683@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAKwvOdnfh9nWwu1xV=WDbETGiabwDxXxQDRCAfpa-+kSZijb9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdkA4SC==vGZ4e7xqFG3Zo=fnhU=FgnSazmWkkVWhkaSYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200818214146.GA3196105@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <df6c1da4-b910-ecb8-0de2-6156dd651be6@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20200820175617.GA604994@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAHk-=whn91ar+EbcBXQb9UXad00Q5WjU-TCB6UBzVba682a4ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200821172935.GA1411923@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAHk-=wi8vdb+wo-DACDpSijYfAbCs135YcnnAbRhGJcU+A=-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi8vdb+wo-DACDpSijYfAbCs135YcnnAbRhGJcU+A=-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:54:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > This one is slightly different from the previous one. The first case is
> > really a call to __builtin_free().
> 
> No, the first case is a disgrace and a compiler bug.
> 
> We've had a situation where gcc complained about a static function
> called "free()", without any header file inclusion, and then
> complained about it not matching its idea of what "free()" is.
> 
> Which is pure and utter garbage.
> 
> It's like you have a local variable "int free", and the compiler says
> "hey, this doesn't match the prototype that I know this name should
> have". It's BS. You just saw the user not just *use* that name, but
> *define* it, and do it in a scope where the complaint is irrelevant
> and stupid, and when we hadn't even included the header that would
> have resulted in conflicts.
> 
> IOW, it's an example of a compiler that thinks "it knows better".
> 
> It's a broken compiler. And it's an example of the kind of breakage
> that compilers absolutely shouldn't do.

That's -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch, and can be turned off, and it
won't warn if you have -fno-builtin-free. I don't completely agree with
you, though warning for static functions is a bit overzealous. For an
external function, especially something more obscure like stpcpy(), I
appreciate the warning.

> 
> The second example is from clang doesn't something horribly horribly stupid.

Calm down man :)

> 
> > This one is turning something that wasn't a function call into
> > __builtin_bzero(), and I would hope that no-builtin-bzero would stop it
> > as well. OTOH, the compiler is free to turn it into memset(), just like
> > it could for structure/array initializers.
> 
> The whole "the compiler is free to do X" argument is pure BS. Stop
> repeating that bogus argument.
> 
> Of COURSE a compiler can do whatever the hell it wants.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that certain things are broken beyond
> words and utterly stupid, and a compiler that does them is a *BAD*
> compiler.
> 
> Turning four stores into a memset() is garbage. Just admit it, instead
> of trying to say that it's allowed.
> 

Look, four stores into memset(), yeah that's a bit weird. I didn't think
you meant "four" literally. But in any case, that has nothing to do with
the topic at hand. It would be just as bad if it was a 16-byte structure
being initialized with an out-of-line memset() call.

But coming back to the actual topic: it is fine if the compiler turns
four stores into __builtin_memset(). A size-16 or -32 __builtin_memset()
will get inlined anyway. There's a lot of garbage here if you look
closely: check out what gcc does to initialize a 7-character array with
zeros at -Os.