Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

I'm inclined to trust Raymond Chen and John Regehr on these matters, so if you assert that they're incorrect here then a source to back up your assertion would help your argument.

View on HN

I am a member of WG14. You should check the C standard. I do not see how "time-travel" is a possible reading of the definition of UB in C. We added another footnote to C23 to counter this idea:

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf "Any other behavior during execution of a program is only affected as a direct consequence of the concrete behavior that occurs when encountering the erroneous or non portable program construct or data. In particular, all observable behavior (5.1.2.4) appears as specified in this document when it happens before an operation with undefined behavior in the execution of the program."

I should point out that compilers also generally do not do true time-travel: Consider this example: https://godbolt.org/z/rPG14rrbj

So maybe we have different definitions of "time travel". But I recall that

- if a compiler finds that condition A would lead to UB, it can assume that A is never true - that fact can "backpropagate" to, for example, eliminate comparisons long before the UB.

Here is an older discussion: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/291548

Is that / will that no longer be true for C23? Or does "time-travel" mean something else in this context?

E.g. this godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/eMYWzv8P8

There is unconditional use of a pointer b, which is UB if b is null. However, there is an earlier branch that checks if b is null. If we expected the UB to "backpropagate", the compiler would eliminate that branch, but both gcc and clang at O3 keep the branch.

However, both gcc and clang have rearranged the side effects of that branch to become visible at the end of the function. I.e. if b is null, it's as if that initial branch never ran. You could observe the difference if you trapped SIGSEGV. So even though the compiler didn't attempt to "time-travel" the UB, in combination with other allowed optimizations (reordering memory accesses), it ended up with the same effect.

There may be different definitions, but also a lot of incorrect information. Nothing changes with C23 except that we added a note that clarifies that UB can not time-travel. The semantic model in C only requires that observable effects are preserved. Everything else can be changed by the optimizer as long as it does not change those observable effects (known as the "as if" principle). This is generally the basis of most optimizations. Thus, I call time-travel only when it would affect previous observable effects, and this what is allowed for UB in C++ but not in C. Earlier non-observable effects can be changed in any case and is nothing speicifc to UB. So if you call time-travel also certain optimization that do not affect earlier observable behavior, then this was and is still allowed. But the often repeated statement that a compiler can assume that "A is never true" does not follow (or only in very limited sense) from the definition of UB in ISO C (and never did), so one has to be more careful here. In particular it is not possible to remove I/O before UB. The following code has to print 0 when called with zero and a compiler which would remove the I/O would not be conforming.

int foo(int x)

{

  printf("%d\n", x);

  fflush(stdout);

  return 1 / x;

}

In the following example

int foo(int x)

{

  if (x) bar(x);

  return 1 / x;

}

the compiler could indeed remove the "if" but not because it were allowed to assume that x can never be zero, but because 1 / 0 can have arbitrary behavior, so could also call "bar()" and then it is called for zero and non-zero x and the if condition could be removed (not that compilers would do this)

I think the clarification is good, probably the amount of optimizations that are prevented by treating volatile and atomics as UB barriers is limited, but as your example show, a lot of very surprising transformations are still allowed.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a good fix for that.

While interactions with volatile and interactive streams cannot time-travel, anything else is free to - the standard only imposes requirements on a conforming implementation in terms of the contents of files at program termination, and programs with undefined behaviour are not required to terminate, so there are approximately no requirements on a program that invokes undefined behaviour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com