sourceware.org decided that I was a spammer for some weird reason...
Maybe this one will go through...
On 04/19/2017 10:52 AM, mailer-dae...@sourceware.org wrote:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<cyg...@cygwin.com>:
Mail rejected: List address must be in To: or Cc: headers.
See http://sourceware.org/lists.html#sourceware-list-info for more information.
If you are not a "spammer", we apologize for the inconvenience.
You can add yourself to the cygwin.com "global allow list"
by sending email *from*the*blocked*email*address* to:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH] strace: Fix crash caused over-optimization
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:57:02 -0500
From: Daniel Santos <daniel.san...@pobox.com>
To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com, Corinna Vinschen
<corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>
On 04/18/2017 05:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 17 03:39, Daniel Santos wrote:
I actually did try that, although I had guessed it wouldn't (and shouldn't)
work. I believe that the reason is that rather the accesses are volatile or
not, gcc can see nothing else using it and memset can be a treated as a
compiler built-in (per the C spec, maybe C89?), so it can presume the
outcome. If there's a cleaner way to do this, I would really love to learn
that. __attribute__ ((used)) only works on variables with static storage.
Now I suspect that I may have found a little bug in gcc, because if I call
memset by casting it directly as a volatile function pointer, it is still
optimized away, and it should not:
((void *(*volatile)(void *, int, size_t))memset) (buf, 0, sizeof (buf));
And most interestingly, if I first assign a local volatile function pointer
to the address, then gcc properly does *not* optimize it away:
void *(*volatile vol_memset)(void *, int, size_t) = memset;
vol_memset (buf, 0, sizeof (buf));
I'm actually really glad for your response and that I played with this
because I need to make sure that this problem doesn't exist in gcc7. I have
changes going into gcc8 shortly and this could mask problems from my test
program where I cast functions as volatile w/o assigning using a local.
Daniel
What about using RtlSecureZeroMemory instead?
Corinna
Well that's surprising. Yes, it does solve the problem and I presume
would be more portable. :) It even inlines the "memset", but uses a
single byte rep stos. Technically, I think that a double-word stos
could be used in this case, but I doubt that matters much.
Daniel
