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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210401003153.97325-1-yury.norov@gmail.com> <20210401003153.97325-12-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <1ac7bbc2-45d9-26ed-0b33-bf382b8d858b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CAHp75Vea0Y_LfWC7LNDoDZqO4t+SVHV5HZMzErfyMPoBAjjk1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YJm5Dpo+RspbAtye@rikard> <YJoyMrqRtB3GSAny@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <YJpePAHS3EDw6PK1@rikard> <151de51e-9302-1f59-407a-e0d68bbaf11c@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <YJrrJhvwq7RUvDXD@rikard> <CAK8P3a02qNHcksJ8DahHgLtbM9ZOydGjE3__3GoxgJFiWrAT0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <030ae370-967c-22d4-56f8-cb0435be7540@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
In-Reply-To: <030ae370-967c-22d4-56f8-cb0435be7540@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 10:33:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1u3WnVAasCXG-sk=7cM2HCcitFWtXvn5hzCnpFU85Lxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] tools: sync lib/find_bit implementation
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-SH <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:16 AM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> It's more complicated than that. __builtin_constant_p on something which
> is a bona-fide Integer Constant Expression (ICE) gets folded early to a
> 1. And then it turns out that such a __builtin_constant_p() that folds
> early to a 1 can be "stronger" than a literal 1, in the sense that when
> used as the controlling expression of a ?: with nonsense in the false
> branch, the former is OK but the latter fails:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c68a0f46-346c-70a0-a9b8-31747888f05f@rasmusvillemoes.dk/
>
> Now what happens when the argument to __builtin_constant_p is not an ICE
> is a lot more complicated. The argument _may_ be so obviously
> non-constant that it can be folded early to a 0, hence still be suitable
> as first argument to __b_c_e. But it is also possible that the compiler
> leaves it unevaluated, in the "hope" that a later optimization stage
> could prove the argument constant. And that's the case where __b_c_e
> will then break, because that can't be left unevaluated for very long -
> the very _type_ of the result depends on which branch is chosen.
>
> tl;dr: there's no "order in which the compiler processes those", __b_c_p
> can get evaluated (folded) early, before __b_c_e inspects it, or be left
> for later stages.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Checking the actual behavior of
a trivial example, I find that

int f(void)
{
    const int i = 1;
    return __builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(i), 1, 2);
}

used to return '2' with gcc-7, which is what I remembered.
With gcc-8 and up as well as any version of clang, it returns '1' now:
https://godbolt.org/z/7eKjbMocb

I have also seen a couple of cases where __builtin_constant_p()
without a __builtin_choose_expr() ended up unexpectedly
returning true when gcc found a code path that it would be constant
(e.g. conditionally initializing a variable to one of two possible
ICEs), but then later turning that back into a non-constant
expression in a later optimization stage. There is probably also
a much more detailed explanation behind those.


        Arnd