On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/16/20 11:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:53 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Consider a TU with file scoped "static const object utf8_sb_map". A
> >> routine within the TU will stuff &utf8_sb_map into an object, something
> >> like:
> >>
> >> fu (...)
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> if (cond)
> >>
> >> dfa->sb_char = utf8_sb_map;
> >>
> >> else
> >>
> >> dfa->sb_char = malloc (...);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> There is another routine in the TU which looks like
> >>
> >> bar (...)
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> if (dfa->sb_char != utf8_sb_map)
> >>
> >> free (dfa->sb_char);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Now imagine that the TU is compiled (with LTO) into a static library,
> >> libgl.a and there's a DSO (libdso.so) which gets linked against libgl.a
> >> and references the first routine (fu). We get a copy of fu in the DSO
> >> along with a copy of utf8_sb_map.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then imagine there's a main executable that dynamicly links against
> >> libdso.so, then links statically against libgl.a. Assume the main
> >> executable does not directly reference fu(), but does call a routine in
> >> libdso.so which eventually calls fu(). Also assume the main executable
> >> directly calls bar(). Again, remember we're compiling with LTO, so we
> >> don't suck in the entire TU, just the routines/data we need.
> >>
> >>
> >> In this scenario, both libdso.so and the main executable are going to a
> >> copy of utf8_sb_map and they'll be at different addresses. So when the
> >> main executable calls into libdso.so which in turn calls libdso's copy
> >> of fu() which stuffs the address of utf8_sb_map from the DSO into
> >> dfa->sb_char. Later the main executable calls bar() that's in the main
> >> executable. It does the comparison to see if dfa->sb_char is equal to
> >> utf8_sb_map -- but it's using the main executable's copy of utf8_sb_map
> >> and naturally free() blows us because it was passed a static object, not
> >> a malloc'd object.
> >>
> >>
> >> ISTM this is a lot like the problem we have where we inline functions
> >> with static data. To fix those we use STB_GNU_UNIQUE. But I don't see
> >> any code in the C front-end which would utilize STB_GNU_UNIQUE. It's
> >> support seems limited to C++.
> >>
> >>
> >> How is this supposed to work for C?
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> > Can you group utf8_sb_map, fu and bar together so that they are defined
> > together?
>
> They're all defined within the same TU in gnulib. It's the LTO
> dead/unreachable code elimination that results in just parts of the TU
> being copied into the DSO and a different set copied into the main
> executable. In many ways LTO makes this look a lot like the static data
> member problems we've had to deal with in the C++ world.
In this case, LTO should treat them as in a single group. Removing
one group member should remove the whole group. Keep one member
should keep the whole group.
--
H.J.
