In non-debug mode the read_null test fails with clang-3.0:

======================================================================
FAIL: test_disable (test.test_faulthandler.FaultHandlerTests)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/home/stefan/hg/cpython/Lib/test/test_faulthandler.py", line 235, in test_disable
    self.assertNotEqual(exitcode, 0)
AssertionError: 0 == 0



clang "optimizes" the undefined behavior into a simple assignment:


$ ~/usr/bin/clang --version
clang version 3.0 (tags/RELEASE_30/final)
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.0
Thread model: posix
$ 
$ cat read_null.c
#include <stdio.h>

int
main(void)
{
    int *x = NULL, y;

    y = *x;
    printf("%d\n", y);

    return 0;
}
$ 
$ ~/usr/bin/clang -Wall -O0 -g -o read_null read_null.c 
$ ./read_null 
Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped)
$ ~/usr/bin/clang -Wall -O3 -g -o read_null read_null.c 
$ ./read_null 
0

Can you try x = (int *)1; instead of x = NULL; ?

STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Can you try x = (int *)1; instead of x = NULL; ?

This works. - I must say that I find this new behavior of clang slightly
dangerous...

There was a similar bug which was declared as a vulnerability in the
Linux kernel:
http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=6820

GCC has an option to disable this optimization: -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks.

Oh, you can also try something else: add the volatile keyword.

Yes, volatile works, too. That's probably the best solution.

Well, to be completely unambiguous. This works:

diff -r d2cf8a34ddf9 Modules/faulthandler.c
--- a/Modules/faulthandler.c    Thu Jan 26 00:15:07 2012 -0800
+++ b/Modules/faulthandler.c    Fri Jan 27 23:16:27 2012 +0100
@@ -943,7 +943,7 @@
 static PyObject *
 faulthandler_read_null(PyObject *self, PyObject *args)
 {
-    int *x = NULL, y;
+    volatile int *x = NULL, y;
     int release_gil = 0;
     if (!PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "|i:_read_null", &release_gil))

That makes "x" and "y" volatile.

Jes??s Cea Avi??n <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> That makes "x" and "y" volatile.

Well yes, but is that a problem?

Nothing. I just read the sourcecode :-). I would add an "y=0" in the declaration too, just for aestetics.

New changeset f71249d785d6 by Victor Stinner in branch 'default':
Issue #13874: read_null() of faulthandler uses volatile to avoid optimisation
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f71249d785d6

Does my commit fix the issue?

STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Does my commit fix the issue?

Yes, perfectly.