No horror story of my own, but here are some quotes from Linus Torvalds (sorry if these are already in one of the linked references in the question):
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/158:
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:22:15 -0800
Subject Re: Invalid compilation without -fno-strict-aliasing
From Jean Tourrilhes <>
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:38:10PM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
Jean Tourrilhes <> said:
It looks like a compiler bug to me...
Some users have complained that when the following code is
compiled without the -fno-strict-aliasing, the order of the write and
memcpy is inverted (which mean a bogus len is mem-copied into the
stream).
Code (from linux/include/net/iw_handler.h) :
static inline char *
iwe_stream_add_event(char * stream, /* Stream of events */
char * ends, /* End of stream */
struct iw_event *iwe, /* Payload */
int event_len) /* Real size of payload */
{
/* Check if it's possible */
if((stream + event_len) < ends) {
iwe->len = event_len;
memcpy(stream, (char *) iwe, event_len);
stream += event_len;
}
return stream;
}
IMHO, the compiler should have enough context to know that the
reordering is dangerous. Any suggestion to make this simple code more
bullet proof is welcomed.
The compiler is free to assume char *stream and struct iw_event *iwe point
to separate areas of memory, due to strict aliasing.
Which is true and which is not the problem I'm complaining about.
(Note with hindsight: this code is fine, but Linux's implementation of memcpy was a macro that cast to long * to copy in larger chunks. With a correctly-defined memcpy, gcc -fstrict-aliasing isn't allowed to break this code. But it means you need inline asm to define a kernel memcpy if your compiler doesn't know how turn a byte-copy loop into efficient asm, which was the case for gcc before gcc7)
And Linus Torvald's comment on the above:
Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
It looks like a compiler bug to me...
Why do you think the kernel uses "-fno-strict-aliasing"?
The gcc people are more interested in trying to find out what can be
allowed by the c99 specs than about making things actually work. The
aliasing code in particular is not even worth enabling, it's just not
possible to sanely tell gcc when some things can alias.
Some users have complained that when the following code is
compiled without the -fno-strict-aliasing, the order of the write and
memcpy is inverted (which mean a bogus len is mem-copied into the
stream).
The "problem" is that we inline the memcpy(), at which point gcc won't
care about the fact that it can alias, so they'll just re-order
everything and claim it's out own fault. Even though there is no sane
way for us to even tell gcc about it.
I tried to get a sane way a few years ago, and the gcc developers really
didn't care about the real world in this area. I'd be surprised if that
had changed, judging by the replies I have already seen.
I'm not going to bother to fight it.
Linus
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01647.html:
Type-based aliasing is stupid. It's so incredibly stupid that it's not even funny. It's broken. And gcc took the broken notion, and made it more so by making it a "by-the-letter-of-the-law" thing that makes no sense.
...
I know for a fact that gcc would re-order write accesses that were clearly to (statically) the same address. Gcc would suddenly think that
unsigned long a;
a = 5;
*(unsigned short *)&a = 4;
could be re-ordered to set it to 4 first (because clearly they don't alias - by reading the standard), and then because now the assignment of 'a=5' was later, the assignment of 4 could be elided entirely! And if somebody complains that the compiler is insane, the compiler people would say "nyaah, nyaah, the standards people said we can do this", with absolutely no introspection to ask whether it made any SENSE.
