-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.9k
Add #[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]
#144529
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
r? @SparrowLii rustbot has assigned @SparrowLii. Use |
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_data_structures Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs |
| Ty: TyAbiInterface<'a, C> + Copy, | ||
| C: HasDataLayout, | ||
| { | ||
| if arg.layout.pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis(cx) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we rely on every single callconv getting this right, we're toast. It's way too easy to forget this somewhere.
Is there some way we can do this centrally for all ABIs?
For instance, we could apply this logic after the target-specific ABI stuff has been done.
Cc @workingjubilee
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The individual calling conventions sometimes still need to be aware of the parameters, to update the number of remaining general-purpose registers, and the current design of the calling convention code makes it hard to abstract this. Separately from this PR, I've been planning to refactor the calling convention handling a bit as even without this change there's a lot of code duplication already (all the compute_abi_info functions are essentially variants of the same function with calls to classify_arg and classify_ret); this refactoring should make it possible to do this in a more centralised way.
For now, this PR previously had a cfg!(debug_assertions)-guarded check at the end of adjust_for_foreign_abi in callconv/mod.rs that asserts that individual calling convention correctly set all the #[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis] arguments to be passed indirectly. I've updated the check so it now always run rather than just running when debug_assetions are enabled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The individual calling conventions sometimes still need to be aware of the parameters, to update the number of remaining general-purpose registers,
Urgh, right, I forgot we need to care about low-level nonsense like that here. :/
Regarding refactoring the ABI code, also see #119183. I think @workingjubilee also has some thoughts in that direction. I'm happy to discuss design options and provide feedback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not the most robust idea, but we there could be some kind of ICE-causing bomb that gets defused when checking an arg's pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis and ignored if there are no args. This at least makes sure that new targets don't get very far if they miss this important detail.
Or a codegen test that gets run on all targets?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have some code doing sanity checks on the ABI after it got computed. We could probably add an assertion there.
rust/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/abi.rs
Lines 368 to 372 in d71ed8d
| fn fn_abi_sanity_check<'tcx>( | |
| cx: &LayoutCx<'tcx>, | |
| fn_abi: &FnAbi<'tcx, Ty<'tcx>>, | |
| spec_abi: ExternAbi, | |
| ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The indirect_argument function would not be codegened if it doesn't get called, so that wouldn't trigger the ABI check. It should probably just be a ui test. This won't run in CI for tier 3 targets, but the worst that can happen is that you get an ICE, not a silent miscompilation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How do we make sure that triggers for every ABI though?
It's an unstable attribute, so worst case we get an ICE when building libcore. That seems fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The indirect_argument function would not be codegened if it doesn't get called, so that wouldn't trigger the ABI check.
what if we use a const fn? Maybe using some const _: () = assert!(/* ... */), would that work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Using const does work, I added that and a fix for transparent wrappers ignoring the attribute at master...folkertdev:rust:pass-indirectly-attr-updates
@beetrees feel free to steal or chery-pick from that. I'd also happily force-push to this branch if you don't have time/interest. (this is on the critical path for c-variadics now that the error messages are in a good state, and I'd hate to waste the reviewer momentum).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've cherry-picked your patch for this.
c0357c1 to
61196cb
Compare
|
@jdonszelmann could you have a look at the attribute code here? This is my first time actually seeing the new infrastructure so I can't say if the way it is used here is correct. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The compiler part LGTM apart from these comments, but I can't really review these ABI adjustments.
61196cb to
ed746a3
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #144740) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
ed746a3 to
d91160a
Compare
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
d91160a to
0401bf3
Compare
|
r? @joshtriplett :) |
|
|
0401bf3 to
b8bd968
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Besides Jubilee, who is not available, the only other person I can think of to review ABI code is r? @bjorn3 |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #146360) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
b8bd968 to
1953e54
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
…jorn3
Add `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]`
This PR adds an internal `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]` attribute that can be applied to structs. Structs marked with this attribute will always be passed using `PassMode::Indirect { on_stack: false, .. }` when being passed by value to functions with non-Rustic calling conventions. This is needed by rust-lang#141980; see that PR for further details.
cc ``@joshtriplett``
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #133149 (Provide more context on `Fn` closure modifying binding) - #144529 (Add `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]`) - #145915 (Stabilize `fmt::from_fn`) - #145974 (Stabilize -Zno-jump-tables into -Cjump-tables=bool) - #146057 (feat: add `from_fn_ptr` to `Waker` and `LocalWaker`) - #146301 (library: std: sys: net: uefi: tcp: Implement write_vectored) - #148437 (Regression test for undefined `__chkstk` on `aarch64-unknown-uefi`) - #148448 (Update books) - #148451 (tidy: Fix false positives with absolute repo paths in `pal.rs` `check()`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
Failed in rollup: #148460 (comment)
@bors r- |
Also emit an error when `rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis` is used in combination with `repr(transparent)`.
27a34ec to
7be6d6f
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
|
@bors r+ |
Add `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]`
This PR adds an internal `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]` attribute that can be applied to structs. Structs marked with this attribute will always be passed using `PassMode::Indirect { on_stack: false, .. }` when being passed by value to functions with non-Rustic calling conventions. This is needed by #141980; see that PR for further details.
cc `@joshtriplett`
|
Yielding to enclosing rollup. @bors retry |
Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #144529 (Add `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]`) - #147017 (FCW for repr(C) enums whose discriminant values do not fit into a c_int or c_uint) - #148459 (bootstrap: Split out a separate `./x test bootstrap-py` step) - #148468 (add logging to `fudge_inference_if_ok`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of #144529 - beetrees:pass-indirectly-attr, r=bjorn3 Add `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]` This PR adds an internal `#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]` attribute that can be applied to structs. Structs marked with this attribute will always be passed using `PassMode::Indirect { on_stack: false, .. }` when being passed by value to functions with non-Rustic calling conventions. This is needed by #141980; see that PR for further details. cc `@joshtriplett`
error on non-rustic ABIs using unsized parameters tracking issue: #48055 This came up in #144529 (comment). The idea is that the layout of an unsized type is unstable (following the rust layout rules), and hence stable ABIs should not use unsized types. On stable, unsized types (or generics with a `?Sized` bound) are not accepted as parameters, so the errors introduced by this PR can only be observed when the unstable `unsized_fn_params` feature is enabled. r? `@bjorn3` cc `@RalfJung`
|
Perf results show a few regressions in |
error on non-rustic ABIs using unsized parameters tracking issue: #48055 This came up in #144529 (comment). The idea is that the layout of an unsized type is unstable (following the rust layout rules), and hence stable ABIs should not use unsized types. On stable, unsized types (or generics with a `?Sized` bound) are not accepted as parameters, so the errors introduced by this PR can only be observed when the unstable `unsized_fn_params` feature is enabled. r? `@bjorn3` cc `@RalfJung`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How should I evaluate that regression? There is one minor optimization in a comment below, but beyond that I think the cost is additional queries for the attribute flag, and that is impossible to work around I think (plus should be mostly cached).
|
|
||
| // See `TyAndLayout::pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis` for details. | ||
| if find_attr!( | ||
| self.get_all_attrs(did), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This could be re-used from earlier
|
I thought the regression looked real, but the same benchmarks bounced back in #148507 (comment), so maybe it’s noise? |
|
@folkertdev please feel free to submit the PR and we can run perf to see if it matters. |
This PR adds an internal
#[rustc_pass_indirectly_in_non_rustic_abis]attribute that can be applied to structs. Structs marked with this attribute will always be passed usingPassMode::Indirect { on_stack: false, .. }when being passed by value to functions with non-Rustic calling conventions. This is needed by #141980; see that PR for further details.cc @joshtriplett