cjdb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Frontend/backend-attribute-error-warning-optimize.c:12
foo(); // expected-error {{call to 'foo' declared with 'error' attribute: oh
no foo}}
+ // expected-note@* {{In function 'baz'}}
if (x())
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > cjdb wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > > > > nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > Instead of allowing this note to appear anywhere in the file, I
> > > > > > > think it's better to use "bookmark" comments. e.g.,
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > void baz() { // #baz_defn
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > void foo() {
> > > > > > > baz(); // expected-note@#baz_defn {{whatever note text}}
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > so that we're testing where the diagnostic is emitted. (This is
> > > > > > > especially important given that the changes are about location
> > > > > > > tracking.)
> > > > > > oh, that's new (to me)! will do
> > > > > It looks like the "bookmarks" don't work because the notes do not
> > > > > line+col info. They follow the warning/error diagnostic which does,
> > > > > on the bottom most call site.
> > > > >
> > > > > The warning is supposed to be emitted on the callsite, not the
> > > > > definition.
> > > > I still don't think this is reasonable for test coverage because this
> > > > means we'll accept the note *anywhere* in the file. This makes it much
> > > > too easy to regress the behavior accidentally (e.g., accidentally emit
> > > > all the notes on line 1 of the file). I think we need *some* way to
> > > > nail down where these notes are emitted in the test. However, I might
> > > > be asking you to solve "please track location information through the
> > > > backend" for that, so perhaps this isn't a reasonable request?
> > > >
> > > > Also, CC @cjdb for awareness of how this kind of diagnostic is produced
> > > > (Chris is working on an idea for how we emit diagnostics so we get
> > > > better structured information from them, so knowing about this novel
> > > > approach might impact that idea).
> > > Very interesting, thanks for the heads up! Cross-phase diagnostics are
> > > definitely something I hadn't considered, and it **does** impact the
> > > design (but not in a derailing way).
> > I think we're back at "please track location information through the
> > backend".
> >
> > That is the tradeoff with this approach; not measurably regressing
> > performance when these attributes aren't used in source in exchange for
> > Note diagnostics that lack precise line+col info, but in practice provide
> > enough info for the user to understand what's going wrong where.
> >
> > Your call if the tradeoff is worth it.
> Here's my thinking, please correct any misunderstandings I have:
>
> * This functionality is primarily for use with `_FORTIFY_SOURCE` (but not
> solely for that purpose), and that's an important security feature used by
> glibc and the Linux kernel.
> * Security of C and C++ source code is Very Important, especially now that
> various gov't agencies [1][2] are suggesting to not use C or C++ for new
> projects specifically because the security posture of the languages and their
> tools.
> * Therefore, the ergonomics of this functionality are quite important for the
> intended use cases and the ecosystem as a whole.
> * Emitting only the function name but without location information does not
> give a good user experience, especially in circumstances where the function
> has multiple overloads, because it pushes the burden onto the programmer to
> figure out which functions are actually involved in the call chain. This
> issue is also present in C because of support for
> `__attribute__((overloadable))` and is not just a C++ concern.
> * The compile-time performance costs of tracking this location information
> are roughly 1%, and there are no runtime or binary size overhead costs unless
> other functionality is enabled (such as emitting debug info).
> * We can determine whether we need to enable this location tracking while
> building the AST when we see one of these two attributes being used, so we
> could enable this functionality selectively without burdening the user with
> enabling it manually via a flag. (We could still consider giving the user a
> flag to never track this even in the presence of the attributes if a user had
> a compelling use case for it.)
>
> If this is all reasonably accurate, I think it's worth seriously considering
> accepting the costs. I don't want to increase our compile time overhead, but
> at the same time, if ~1% is a "make or break" amount of compile-time
> performance to lose, we should be addressing *that* issue rather than
> hamstringing a user-facing diagnostic feature related to security. It's hard
> to argue "that CVE was totally worth it because we could then compile 1%
> faster". That said, perhaps others have a strong contrary opinion they'd like
> to argue in favor of?
>
> [1]
> https://media.defense.gov/2022/Nov/10/2003112742/-1/-1/0/CSI_SOFTWARE_MEMORY_SAFETY.PDF
> [2] https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8397
>
My attitude is that we should prioritise ergonomics and usability over speed.
Yes, having to wait a little longer for stuff to build sucks, but there's a
clear ergonomics issue, which is motivation enough for me in this case (adding
the CVE argument is the cherry on top). Folks either aren't going to use a
feature if it's difficult to get right, or they're going to use it with large
amounts of stress (and I don't think this is fair).
Moreover, I think there may be some opportunities we can look into to cancel
out this pessimisation.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141451/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141451
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
