gcc attributes for init-on-first-use functions

I've been using the gcc const and pure attributes for functions which return a pointer to "constant" data that's allocated a开发者_JS百科nd initialized on the first use, i.e. where the function will return the same value each time it's called. As an example (not my usage case, but a well-known example) think of a function that allocates and computes trig lookup tables on the first call and just returns a pointer to the existing tables after the first call.

The problem: I've been told this usage is incorrect because these attributes forbid side effects, and that the compiler could even optimize out the call completely in some cases if the return value is not used. Is my usage of const/pure attributes safe, or is there any other way to tell the compiler that N>1 calls to the function are equivalent to 1 call to the function, but that 1 call to the function is not equivalent to 0 calls to the function? Or in other words, that the function only has side effects the first time it's called?

---

I say this is correct based on my understanding of pure and const, but if anyone has a precise definition of the two, please speak up. This gets tricky because the GCC documentation doesn't lay out exactly what it means for a function to have "no effects except the return value" (for pure) or to "not examine any values except their arguments" (for const). Obviously all functions have some effects (they use processor cycles, modify memory) and examine some values (the function code, constants).

"Side effects" would have to be defined in terms of the semantics of the C programming language, but we can guess what the GCC folks mean based on the purpose of these attributes, which is to enable additional optimizations (at least, that's what I assume they are for).

Forgive me if some of the following is too basic...

Pure functions can participate in common subexpression elimination. Their feature is that they don't modify the environment, so the compiler is free to call it fewer times without changing the semantics of the program.

z = f(x);
y = f(x);

becomes:

z = y = f(x);

Or gets eliminated entirely if z and y are unused.

So my best guess is that a working definition of "pure" is "any function which can be called fewer times without changing the semantics of the program". However, function calls may not be moved, e.g.,

size_t l = strlen(str); // strlen is pure
*some_ptr = '\0';
// Obviously, strlen can't be moved here...

Const functions can be reordered, because they do not depend on the dynamic environment.

// Assuming x and y not aliased, sin can be moved anywhere
*some_ptr = '\0';
double y = sin(x);
*other_ptr = '\0';

So my best guess is that a working definition of "const" is "any function which can be called at any point without changing the semantics of the program". However, there is a danger:

__attribute__((const))
double big_math_func(double x, double theta, double iota)
{
    static double table[512];
    static bool initted = false;
    if (!initted) {
        ...
        initted = true;
    }
    ...
    return result;
}

Since it's const, the compiler could reorder it...

pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
...
z = big_math_func(x, theta, iota);
...
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
// big_math_func might go here, if the compiler wants to

In this case, it could be called simultaneously from two processors even though it only appears inside a critical section in your code. Then the processor could decide to postpone changes to table after a change to initted already went through, which is bad news. You can solve this with memory barriers or pthread_once.

I don't think this bug will ever show up on x86, and I don't think it shows up on many systems that don't have multiple physical processors (not cores). So it will work fine for ages and then fail suddenly on a dual-socket POWER computer.

Conclusion: The advantage of these definitions is that they make it clear what kind of changes the compiler is allowed to make in the presence of these attributes, which (I think is) somewhat vague in the GCC docs. The disadvantage is that it's not clear that these are the definitions used by the GCC team.

If you look at the Haskell language specification, for example, you'll find a much more precise definition of purity, since purity is so important to the Haskell language.

Edit: I have not been able to coerce GCC or Clang into moving a solitary __attribute__((const)) function call across another function call, but it seems entirely possible that in the future, something like that would happen. Remember when -fstrict-aliasing became the default, and everybody suddenly had a lot more bugs in their programs? It's stuff like that that makes me cautious.

It seems to me that when you mark a function __attribute__((const)), you are promising the compiler that the result of the function call is the same no matter when it is called during your program's execution, as long as the parameters are the same.

However, I did come up with a way of moving a const function out of a critical section, although the way I did it could be called "cheating" of a sort.

__attribute__((const))
extern int const_func(int x);

int func(int x)
{
    int y1, y2;
    y1 = const_func(x);
    pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
    y2 = const_func(x);
    pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
    return y1 + y2;
}

The compiler translates this into the following code (from the assembly):

int func(int x)
{
    int y;
    y = const_func(x);
    pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
    pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
    return y * 2;
}

Note that this won't happen with only __attribute__((pure)), the const attribute and only the const attribute triggers this behavior.

As you can see, the call inside the critical section disappeared. It seems rather arbitrary that the earlier call was kept, and I would not be willing to wager that the compiler won't, in some future version, make a different decision about which call to keep, or whether it might move the function call somewhere else entirely.

Conclusion 2: Tread carefully, because if you don't know what promises you are making to the compiler, a future version of the compiler might surprise you.