As described in depth in rule DCL22-C. Use volatile for data that cannot be cached, a volatile
-qualified variable "shall be evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine" [ISO/IEC 9899:2011]. In other words, the volatile
qualifier is used to instruct the compiler to not make caching optimizations about a variable.
However, as demonstrated in "Volatiles Are Miscompiled, and What to Do about It" [Eide and Regehr], all tested compilers generated some percentage of incorrect compiled code with regard to volatile
accesses. Therefore, it is necessary to know how your compiler behaves when the standard volatile
behavior is required. The authors also provide a workaround that eliminates some or all of these errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
As demonstrated in Eide and Regehr's work, the following code example compiles incorrectly using GCC 4.3.0 for IA32 and the -Os
optimization flag:
const volatile int x; volatile int y; void foo(void) { for(y = 0; y < 10; y++) { int z = x; } }
Because the variable x
is volatile
-qualified, it should be accessed 10 times in this program. However, as shown in the compiled object code, it is accessed only once due to a loop-hoisting optimization [Eide and Regehr]:
foo: movl $0, y movl x, %eax jmp .L2 .L3: movl y, %eax incl %eax movl %eax, y .L2: movl y, %eax cmpl $10, %eax jg .L3 ret
Should x
represent a hardware register or some other memory-mapped device that has side effects when accessed, the previous miscompiled code example may produce unexpected behavior.
Compliant Solution
Eide and Regehr tested a workaround by wrapping volatile
accesses with function calls. They describe it with the intuition that "we can replace an action that compilers empirically get wrong by a different action—a function call—that compilers can get right" [Eide and Regehr]. For example, the workaround for the noncompliant code example would be
int vol_read_int(volatile int *vp) { return *vp; } volatile int *vol_id_int(volatile int *vp) { return vp; } const volatile int x; volatile int y; void foo(void) { for(*vol_id_int(&y) = 0; vol_read_int(&y) < 10; *vol_id_int(&y) = vol_read_int(&y) + 1) { int z = vol_read_int(&x); } }
The workarounds proposed by Eide and Regehr fix many of the volatile
-access bugs in the tested compilers. However, compilers are always changing, so critical sections of code should be compiled as if for deployment, and the compiled object code should be inspected for the correct behavior.
Risk Assessment
The volatile
qualifier should be used with caution in mission-critical situations. Always make sure code that assumes certain behavior when using the volatile
qualifier is inspected at the object code level for compiler bugs.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCL17-C | Medium | Probable | High | P4 | L3 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
LDRA tool suite | 9.7.1 | 134 S | Partially implemented |
Bibliography
[Eide and Regehr] | "Volatiles Are Miscompiled, and What to Do about It" |
[ISO/IEC 9899:2011] | Subclause 6.7.3, "Type Qualifiers" |
4 Comments
David Svoboda
Very good rule, Andrew. Main issues are formatting-related:
David Svoboda
Rose can catch violations of this rule, but I'm not sure it should...AFAICT this rule prohibits use of volatile variables, except via function calls (akin to get/set methods in Java).
Anyway this rule is less about programming practice than about compiler bugs.
Justin Pincar
If you use gcc --std=c99 things work correctly.
Joseph C. Sible
The cited paper is now 12 years old. Is this guideline still relevant? I'd expect the bugs to be fixed by now.