From: "Mattias Rönnblom" <hofors@lysator.liu.se>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>,
"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Luka Jankovic <luka.jankovic@ericsson.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: fix issue in parallel atomic tests
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:19:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56e72271-2e4c-4ea4-b7b4-e7662202116c@lysator.liu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F7CD@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On 2024-10-13 15:37, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, 13 October 2024 13.57
>>
>> The macros generating the parallel test for atomic test-and-
>> [set|clear|flip] functions used a 64-bit reference word when assuring
>> no neighbouring bits were modified, even when generating code for the
>> 32-bit version of the test.
>>
>> This issue causes spurious test failures on GCC 12.2.0 (the default
>> compiler on for example Debian 12 "bookworm"), when optimization level
>> 2 or higher are used.
>>
>> The test failures do not occur with GCC 11, 12.3 and 13.2.
>>
>> To the author, this looks like a promotion-related compiler bug in GCC
>> 12.2.
>
> I am curious about the compiler bug...
>
> Did the bug occur when the most significant bit was set, so it sign related?
>
It seems to happen a lot more often than 1/32 times. Also, all involved
types are unsigned.
If you set the optimization level to "1" (i.e.,
__attribute__((optimize("O"))) on the
test_bit_atomic_parallel_test_and_modify32 function, the test passes on
12.2.0.
> Maybe this will reveal something:
>
> TEST_ASSERT(expected_word == word,
> "Untouched bits have changed value, %" PRIx ## size
> " should be %" PRIx64,
> word, expected_word);
>
Confusingly enough, the failing assertion is the one prior that assertion.
>>
>> Fixes: 35326b61aecb ("bitops: add atomic bit operations in new API")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
>> ---
>
> I took a deep look into this.
>
> Regardless of what the compiler bug is,
>
> Reviewed-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
>
Thanks.
I'm far from sure it's a compiler bug. Just look at the base rate: how
often does the code you just wrote fail because of a bug in your code,
and how often is the root cause to be found in the compiler or the
standard libraries.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-13 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-13 11:57 Mattias Rönnblom
2024-10-13 13:37 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-13 15:19 ` Mattias Rönnblom [this message]
2024-10-13 15:36 ` Morten Brørup
2024-10-14 14:16 ` David Marchand
2024-10-14 14:33 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2024-10-14 14:14 ` David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56e72271-2e4c-4ea4-b7b4-e7662202116c@lysator.liu.se \
--to=hofors@lysator.liu.se \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=luka.jankovic@ericsson.com \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).