Hello Mike,
I am surprised to hear about a source level debug problem
with static functions. The Microsoft build tools have an
optimization that can give the appearance of code stepping
through the incorrect function. Here is an example:
static int f1 (void) {return 2;}
static int f2 (void) {return 2;}
static int f3 (void) {return 2;}
int main (int argc, char *argv [])
{
if (argc ==1) return f1 ();
if (argc ==2) return f2 ();
if (argc ==3) return f3 ();
return 0;
}
With certain optimization settings, the code generation
actually replaces function f2() and f3() with f1() so
that f2 and f3 can be eliminated. Yet f1 remains a stand-alone
function that is not inlined:
main:
003B1010 55 push ebp
003B1011 8B EC mov ebp,esp
003B1013 83 7D 08 01 cmp dword ptr [argc],1
003B1017 75 07 jne main+10h (3B1020h)
003B1019 E8 E2 FF FF FF call f1 (3B1000h)
003B101E EB 1C jmp main+2Ch (3B103Ch)
003B1020 83 7D 08 02 cmp dword ptr [argc],2
003B1024 75 07 jne main+1Dh (3B102Dh)
003B1026 E8 D5 FF FF FF call f1 (3B1000h)
003B102B EB 0F jmp main+2Ch (3B103Ch)
003B102D 83 7D 08 03 cmp dword ptr [argc],3
003B1031 75 07 jne main+2Ah (3B103Ah)
003B1033 E8 C8 FF FF FF call f1 (3B1000h)
003B1038 EB 02 jmp main+2Ch (3B103Ch)
003B103A 33 C0 xor eax,eax
003B103C 5D pop ebp
003B103D C3 ret
In this case, even the Microsoft Visual Studio debugger gives
the appearance of stepping through the 'wrong' function. But
the linker /verbose output confirms the debugger is correct:
Selected symbol:
_f1 from 1.obj
Replaced symbol(s):
_f2 from 1.obj
_f3 from 1.obj
Improved optimization from use of static functions is
unlikely with the Microsoft tools because link time code
generation (/LTCG) is enabled. But EDK2 does not yet enable
a similar option when gnu build tools are used. In some
cases GCC will duplicate the code of a local function that
is not static. One copy is in the form of a public function
for external calling, and other copies inlined to satisfy
local calls to the function. This results in unused code
because the public function is never called. The code size
increase can affect boot time because of reading it from
the relatively slow flash chip.
Thanks,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Kinney, Michael D [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 11:40 PM
To: [email protected]; 'Laszlo Ersek'
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] MdePkg: refine code for
BaseOrderedCollectionRedBlackTreeLib
Scott,
We have seen issues with some source level debuggers when using static
functions. I some cases, it will show the wrong function
name when stepping through a static function. Unless there is a really good
reason, we prefer to not use static to improve
debugability.
Public functions are declared in the library class include file. I agree that
making it obvious that a function in a library
implementation is an internal worker function is very helpful when looking at
the source code.
Can you provide an example where use of 'static' improves optimization?
Thanks,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Duplichan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 8:09 PM
To: [email protected]; 'Laszlo Ersek'
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] MdePkg: refine code for
BaseOrderedCollectionRedBlackTreeLib
Dong, Eric [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
]Hi Laszlo,
]
]I do some changes for this library to follow EDKII coding style, please help
to ]review it.
]
]Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
]Signed-off-by: Eric Dong <[email protected]>
]
]Thanks,
]Eric
Hello Eric,
A couple of questions:
1) Why convert static functions to global functions?
2) Where is this explained in an EDKII coding document?
I ask because I consider declaring a local helper
function as static a courtesy to the reader of the code.
It keeps the reader from having to search other files to
know if the function is called elsewhere. Declaring a
private function as static can also help the build tools
optimize in some cases.
Thanks,
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
