[PATCH 02/10] compiler.h: add is_const() as a replacement of __is_constexpr()
Martin Uecker
muecker at gwdg.de
Thu Dec 5 22:40:17 PST 2024
Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 02:25 +0000 schrieb David Laight:
> From: Vincent Mailhol
> > Sent: 05 December 2024 15:31
> >
> > -CC: Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker at med.uni-goettingen.de>
> > +CC: Martin Uecker <muecker at gwdg.de>
> > (seems that Martin changed his address)
My current one is this: uecker at tugraz.at
Martin
> >
> > On Thu. 5 Dec. 2024 at 03:39, David Laight <David.Laight at aculab.com> wrote:
> > > > Sent: 02 December 2024 17:33
> > > >
> > > > From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent at wanadoo.fr>
> > > >
> > > > __is_constexpr(), while being one of the most glorious one liner hack
> > > > ever witnessed by mankind, is overly complex. Following the adoption
> > > > of C11 in the kernel, this macro can be simplified through the use of
> > > > a _Generic() selection.
> > >
> > > You should give credit to some of the earlier patches that do the same.
> > > I'm sure there were some related ones from Linus - not applied yet.
> >
> > ACK. Would adding a suggested--by Linus tag solve your concern?
>
> I actually suspect the first patches to change __is_constexpr() to
> use _Generic were from myself.
> I've found a patch I send in November 2023.
>
> >
> > > > First, split the macro in two:
> > > >
> > > > - __is_const_zero(x): an helper macro; tells whether x is the
> > > > integer constant expression 0 or something else.
> > > >
> > > > - is_const(x): replacement of __is_constexpr(); tells whether x is a
> > > > integer constant expression.
> > > >
> > > > The split serves two purposes: first make it easier to understand;
> > > > second, __is_const_zero() will be reused as a building block for other
> > > > is_const_*() macros that will be introduced later on.
> > > >
> > > > The core principle of __is_constexpr() to abuse the return type of the
> > > > ternary operator remains, but all the surrounding sizeof() hack
> > > > disappear.
> > > >
> > > > On a side note, while not relevant to the kernel, __is_constexpr()
> > > > relied on the GNU extension that sizeof(void) is 1. const_expr() does
> > > > not use any GNU extensions, making it ISO C compliant.
> > > >
> > > > __is_constexpr() is temporarily kept and will be removed once all its
> > > > users get migrated to is_const() (or one of its friend).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent at wanadoo.fr>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > > index a2a56a50dd85227a4fdc62236a2710ca37c5ba52..30ce06df4153cfdc0fad9bc7bffab9097f8b0450 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > > @@ -316,6 +316,47 @@ static inline void *offset_to_ptr(const int *off)
> > > > #define statically_true(x) (__builtin_constant_p(x) && (x))
> > > > #define statically_false(x) (__builtin_constant_p(x) && (x) == 0)
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Whether x is the integer constant expression 0 or something else.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Details:
> > > > + * - The C11 standard defines in §6.3.2.3.3
> > > > + * (void *)<integer constant expression with the value 0>
> > > > + * as a null pointer constant (c.f. the NULL macro).
> > > > + * - If x evaluates to the integer constant expression 0,
> > > > + * (void *)(x)
> > > > + * is a null pointer constant. Else, it is a void * expression.
> > > > + * - In a ternary expression:
> > > > + * condition ? operand1 : operand2
> > > > + * if one of the two operands is of type void * and the other one
> > > > + * some other pointer type, the C11 standard defines in §6.5.15.6
> > > > + * the resulting type as below:
> > > > + * if one operand is a null pointer constant, the result has the
> > > > + * type of the other operand; otherwise [...] the result type is
> > > > + * a pointer to an appropriately qualified version of void.
> > > > + * - As such, in
> > > > + * 0 ? (void *)(x) : (char *)0
> > > > + * if x is the integer constant expression 0, operand1 is a null
> > > > + * pointer constant and the resulting type is that of operand2:
> > > > + * char *. If x is anything else, the type is void *.
> > > > + * - The (long) cast silences a compiler warning for when x is not 0.
> > > > + * - Finally, the _Generic() dispatches the resulting type into a
> > > > + * Boolean.
> > >
> > > The comment is absolutely excessive.
> > > I'm sure I managed about 2 lines in one of the patches I did.
> >
> > I think that Linus made it clear in:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgfpLdt7SFFGcByTfHdkvv7AEa3MDu_s_W1kfOxQs49pw@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > that this deserves a detailed comment.
>
> And he wrote one in https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiq=GUNWJwWh1CRAYchW73UmOaSkaCovLatfDKeveZctA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> /*
> * iff 'x' is a non-zero constant integer expression,
> * then '!(x)' will be a zero constant integer expression,
> * and casting that to 'void *' will result in a NULL pointer.
> * Otherwise casting it to 'void *' will be just a regular 'void *'.
> *
> * The type of '0 ? NULL : (char *)' is 'char *'
> * The type of '0 ? (void *) : (char *) is 'void *'
> */
> #define const_true(x) \
> _Generic(0 ? (void *)((long)!(x)) : (char *)0, char *: 1, void *: 0)
>
>
>
> >
> > The details block in the current __is_constexpr() is 37 lines long,
> > the details block in __is_const_zero() takes 22 lines. So I would
> > argue that I made things better.
>
> The old block was too long :-)
>
> >
> > Unless more people share your concern, I am planning to keep this comment as-is.
> >
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Glory to Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker at med.uni-goettingen.de>
> > >
> > > IIRC Martin has agreed in the past that the accreditation can
> > > be removed - especially since it refers to the 'sizeof (void)' trick.
> >
> > I tried to look for such message:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=f%3A%22martin+uecker%22+__is_constexpr
> >
> > but couldn't find it. Do you have the link?
> >
> > @Martin, do you agree that I remove the accreditation?
> >
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define __is_const_zero(x) \
> > > > + _Generic(0 ? (void *)(long)(x) : (char *)0, char *: 1, void *: 0)
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Returns a constant expression while determining if its argument is a
> > > > + * constant expression, most importantly without evaluating the argument.
> > >
> > > You need to differentiate between a 'constant integer expression'
> > > and a 'compile time constant'.
> >
> > OK. This one was just copied from the previous __is_constexpr(). I will apply
> > "s/constant expression/constant integer expression/g" in v2.
> >
> > > > + *
> > > > + * If getting a constant expression is not relevant to you, use the more
> > > > + * powerful __builtin_constant_p() instead.
> > >
> > > __builtin_constant_p() is not 'more powerful' it is testing for
> > > something different.
> >
> > I meant to say that __builtin_constant_p() is more powerful at
> > constant folding. But I agree that the comment is not clear.
> >
> > What about this?
> >
> > If getting a constant integer expression is not relevant to you, use
> > __builtin_constant_p() which not only returns true if the argument
> > is an integer constant expression, but also if it is a compile time
> > constant.
>
> Complete f***ed tense.
>
> It's not about 'constant folding' and 'powerful' isn't the correct word.
> They are checking for two different things.
>
> A 'constant integer expression' is defined by the C language, and is
> basically something that is constant when first parsed by the compiler
> (my definition) so it can pretty much only contain constants, sizeof()
> and offsetof().
>
> __builtin_constant_p() is true if the compiler decides that an expression is
> constant. This can track values through inlined function calls and can
> change from 'unknown' to 'true' late in the compilation.
>
> David
>
> >
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Vincent Mailhol
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list