From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pasim(at)vmware(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
Date: | 2020-06-16 23:31:05 |
Message-ID: | 20200616233105.sm5bvodo6unigno7@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-06-03 00:36:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Should we think about adding automated detection of this type of
> mistake? I don't like the attached as-is because of the #include
> footprint expansion, but maybe we can find a better way.
I experimented with making the compiler warn about about some of these
kinds of mistakes without needing full test coverage:
I was able to get clang to warn about things like using palloc in signal
handlers, or using palloc while holding a spinlock. Which would be
great, except that it doesn't warn when there's an un-annotated
intermediary function. Even when that function is in the same TU.
Here's my attempt: https://godbolt.org/z/xfa6Es
It does detect things like
spinlock_lock();
example_alloc(17);
spinlock_unlock();
<source>:49:2: warning: cannot call function 'example_alloc' while mutex 'holding_spinlock' is held [-Wthread-safety-analysis]
example_alloc(17);
^
which isn't too bad.
Does anybody think this would be useful even if it doesn't detect the
more complicated cases?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-06-16 23:41:06 | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2020-06-16 22:59:25 | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |