From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: thoughts on reallocarray, explicit_bzero?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 02:41:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140520004135.GC12324@port70.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537A80CB.3040308@mit.edu>
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> [2014-05-19 15:08:11 -0700]:
> On 05/19/2014 09:25 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > i'd use a saturated multiplication, because malloc/realloc
> > are not the only places where overflowing size calculations
> > may cause problems and in such cases (size_t)-1 is just as
> > good as a failure and it can be added to your code without
> > portability issues
> >
> > static size_t sizemul(size_t a, size_t b)
> > {
> > return b>1 && a>1 && a>-1/b ? -1 : a*b;
> > }
>
> Before going nuts trying to optimize this, it may pay to write some
> good-enough helper and to use native compiler support for this, which is
> already available in Clang [1] and should be coming reasonably soon in
> gcc [2].
it's a shame that clang came up with this nonsese
they managed to add 18 new compiler specific builtins,
without actually addressing the practical issue:
easy to use overflow check of size_t multiplication..
(or checking arithmetics of various other non-builtin types)
(the several new multiprecision arithmetics builtins
are bad too but less problematic in practice)
they didn't make it easy to write backward compatible code
either: historically ifdef hackery was used to "detect"
builtins support using the __GNUC__ version macros, but clang
has incompatible versioning and builtins now making the use of
new builtins more painful
(meanwhile a lot of code has idiomatic overflow checks in iso c
which is not recognized by gcc or clang..
and many c parsing tools don't understand the fancy new builtins)
> I suspect that, on all reasonably platforms, if doublesize_t is the
> unsigned type that's twice as wide as size_t, then this isn't too bad
> either:
>
> doublesize_t total = (doublesize_t)a * (doublesize_t)b;
> if (total > SIZE_MAX)
> fail;
>
> For quite a while, gcc has had a 128-bit integer type that works on
> 64-bit platforms, and gcc should always support a 64-bit type on 32-bit
> platforms. On systems with widening multiply (e.g. x86), even if the
> optimizer doesn't detect the idiom, this is only a few cycles slower
> than the optimal code.
umm __int128 is only supported in gcc since 4.6 i think
(and even after that there were some related brokenness
in hacked toolchains so >=gcc-4.6 is not enough to check)
otherwise yes with doublesize_t it is easy to do
but the point was to do it in c
for doublesize_t you would need configure time checks..
or nasty ifdef hackery.. and in the end you still need the
fallback for implementations without such a type
(the code i showed can be included in any source file where
size_t is defined)
> [1]
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#checked-arithmetic-builtins
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61129
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-20 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-19 15:31 Isaac Dunham
2014-05-19 15:43 ` Rich Felker
2014-05-19 16:19 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-20 6:19 ` Rich Felker
2014-05-20 15:50 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-19 15:44 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-19 16:16 ` Rich Felker
2014-05-19 16:30 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-19 16:32 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2015-01-28 22:01 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2015-01-28 22:34 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2015-01-28 22:38 ` Nathan McSween
2015-01-28 22:54 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2015-01-28 23:02 ` Josiah Worcester
2015-01-29 2:19 ` Rich Felker
2015-01-29 4:03 ` Brent Cook
2015-01-29 4:15 ` Rich Felker
2015-01-29 9:30 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2015-01-29 10:04 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2015-01-29 10:31 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2015-01-29 10:54 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-19 16:25 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2014-05-19 16:45 ` Daniel Cegiełka
2014-05-19 16:58 ` Rich Felker
2014-05-19 16:55 ` Rich Felker
2014-05-19 18:12 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2014-05-19 22:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-20 0:41 ` Szabolcs Nagy [this message]
2014-06-11 9:59 ` Thorsten Glaser
2014-06-11 12:59 ` Rich Felker
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=20140520004135.GC12324@port70.net \
--to=nsz@port70.net \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
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).