Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-62944-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <1ee756a2-3043-43a4-9f20-97773ce3e408@sdfg.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 06:27:52 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] tools/nolibc: Fix strlcat() return code and size
 usage
Content-Language: en-US
From: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240129141516.198636-1-rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
 <20240129141516.198636-3-rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar> <20240211104817.GA19364@1wt.eu>
 <52c52665-35f5-4111-a9d4-f8669c79bf70@sdfg.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <52c52665-35f5-4111-a9d4-f8669c79bf70@sdfg.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2/13/24 00:16, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> On 2/11/24 11:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> The test inside the loop is going to make this not very efficient. Same
>> for the fact that we're measuring the length of src twice (once via
>> strlen, a second time through the loop). I've just had a look and it
>> compiles to 77 bytes at -Os. A simpler variant would consist in trying

What code are you compiling that uses strlcat?

I've tried dropping almost all the flags to leave only:
	-Os -nostdlib -lgcc

And I still don't see the 77 bytes.


> $ nm --size -t x test.o
>      0000000000000004 V errno
>      0000000000000006 t strlcat.constprop.0
>      0000000000000008 V _auxv
>      0000000000000008 V environ
>      000000000000000e W strlen
>      000000000000000f W _start
>      0000000000000018 W raise
>      000000000000001b W abort
>      000000000000004c T main
>      000000000000005a t u64toa_r.isra.0
>      0000000000000095 W _start_c
>      00000000000002a8 t printf
> 
> How are you measuring it there?

btw, sorry for the late reply. I was on a flight that was rebooked, it 
took me some days to arrive. But I finally arrived and have internet now :)

The constprop seems to be some gcc optimization to simplify things.

I see what happens. The example I was compiling was left with size=0 (a 
leftover from when I was testing the code). That is very easy for gcc to 
optimize it all out. That is why it can make it so small.

If I compile the example from my original email, though, I still don't 
see the 77 bytes you mention. I see 31 in the nm output, that in decimal 
is 49 bytes.

Maybe tomorrow with some sleep after the long flight, I see what else is 
happening :)


Best,
Rodrigo