CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++gccx86-64memory-alignment
user697683
user697683

Reputation: 1483

x86, C++, gcc and memory alignment

I have this simple C++ code: 

int testFunction(int* input, long length) {
    int sum = 0;
    for (long i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
        sum += input[i];
    }
    return sum;
}


#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
    union{
        int* input;
        char* cinput;
    };

    size_t length = 1024;
    input = new int[length];


    //cinput++;

    cout<<testFunction(input, length-1);

}

If I compile it with g++ 4.9.2 with -O3, it runs fine. I expected that if I uncomment the penultimate line it would run slower, however it outright crashes with SIGSEGV.

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0000000000400754 in main ()
(gdb) disassemble 
Dump of assembler code for function main:
   0x00000000004006e0 <+0>:     sub    $0x8,%rsp
   0x00000000004006e4 <+4>:     movabs $0x100000000,%rdi
   0x00000000004006ee <+14>:    callq  0x400690 <_Znam@plt>
   0x00000000004006f3 <+19>:    lea    0x1(%rax),%rdx
   0x00000000004006f7 <+23>:    and    $0xf,%edx
   0x00000000004006fa <+26>:    shr    $0x2,%rdx
   0x00000000004006fe <+30>:    neg    %rdx
   0x0000000000400701 <+33>:    and    $0x3,%edx
   0x0000000000400704 <+36>:    je     0x4007cc <main+236>
   0x000000000040070a <+42>:    cmp    $0x1,%rdx
   0x000000000040070e <+46>:    mov    0x1(%rax),%esi
   0x0000000000400711 <+49>:    je     0x4007f1 <main+273>
   0x0000000000400717 <+55>:    add    0x5(%rax),%esi
   0x000000000040071a <+58>:    cmp    $0x3,%rdx
   0x000000000040071e <+62>:    jne    0x4007e1 <main+257>
   0x0000000000400724 <+68>:    add    0x9(%rax),%esi
   0x0000000000400727 <+71>:    mov    $0x3ffffffc,%r9d
   0x000000000040072d <+77>:    mov    $0x3,%edi
   0x0000000000400732 <+82>:    mov    $0x3fffffff,%r8d
   0x0000000000400738 <+88>:    sub    %rdx,%r8
   0x000000000040073b <+91>:    pxor   %xmm0,%xmm0
   0x000000000040073f <+95>:    lea    0x1(%rax,%rdx,4),%rcx
   0x0000000000400744 <+100>:   xor    %edx,%edx
   0x0000000000400746 <+102>:   nopw   %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
   0x0000000000400750 <+112>:   add    $0x1,%rdx
=> 0x0000000000400754 <+116>:   paddd  (%rcx),%xmm0
   0x0000000000400758 <+120>:   add    $0x10,%rcx
   0x000000000040075c <+124>:   cmp    $0xffffffe,%rdx
   0x0000000000400763 <+131>:   jbe    0x400750 <main+112>
   0x0000000000400765 <+133>:   movdqa %xmm0,%xmm1
   0x0000000000400769 <+137>:   lea    -0x3ffffffc(%r9),%rcx
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---

Why does it crash? Is it a compiler bug? Am I causing some undefined behavior? Does the compiler expect that ints are always 4-byte-aligned?

I also tested it on clang and there's no crash.

Here's g++'s assembly output: http://pastebin.com/CJdCDCs4

Upvotes: 4

Views: 1086

Answers (3)

Paul R
Paul R

Reputation: 212969

gcc has vectorized the loop with SSE instructions. paddd (like most SSE instructions) requires 16 byte alignment. I haven't looked at the code previous to paddd in detail but I expect that it assumes 4 byte alignment initially, iterates with scalar code (where misalignment only incurs a performance penalty, not a crash) until it can assume 16 byte alignment, then enters the SIMD loop, processing 4 ints at a time. By adding an offset of 1 byte you are breaking the precondition of 4 byte alignment for the array of ints, and after that all bets are off. If you're going to be doing nasty stuff with misaligned data (and I highly recommend you don't) then you should disable automatic vectorization (gcc -fno-tree-vectorize).

Upvotes: 4

anatolyg
anatolyg

Reputation: 28251

The instruction that crashed is paddd (you highlighted it). The name is short for "packed add doubleword" (see e.g. here) - it is a part of the SSE instruction set. These instructions require aligned pointers; for example, the link above has a description of exceptions that paddd may cause:

GP(0)

...(128-bit operations only)

If a memory operand is not aligned on a 16-byte boundary, regardless of segment.

This is exactly your case. The compiler arranged the code in such a way that it could use these fast 128-bit operations like paddd, and you subverted it with your union trick.

I can guess that code generated by clang doesn't use SSE, so it's not sensitive to alighnment. If so, it's also probably much slower (but you won't notice it with just 1024 iterations).

Upvotes: 2

Kerrek SB
Kerrek SB

Reputation: 477040

The code input = new int[length]; cinput++; causes undefined behaviour because the second statement is reading from a union member that is not active.

Even ignoring that, testFunction(input, length-1) would again have undefined behaviour for the same reason.

Even ignoring that, the sum loop accesses an object through a glvalue of the wrong type, which has undefined behaviour.

Even ignoring that, reading from an uninitialized object, as your sum loop does, would again have undefined behaviour.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions