Skip to content
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

Equal CTFE function pointers are unequal after codegen #84581

Open
tmiasko opened this issue Apr 26, 2021 · 12 comments
Open

Equal CTFE function pointers are unequal after codegen #84581

tmiasko opened this issue Apr 26, 2021 · 12 comments
Labels
A-codegen Area: Code generation A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) C-bug Category: This is a bug.

Comments

@tmiasko
Copy link
Contributor

tmiasko commented Apr 26, 2021

$ cat a.rs 
pub static F: fn() = f::<u32>;
pub fn f<T>() {}
$ cat b.rs 
static F: fn() = a::F;
fn main() {
    assert_eq!(a::F, crate::F);
}
$ rustc --edition=2018 -O --crate-type=lib a.rs 
$ rustc --edition=2018 -O --crate-type=bin b.rs -L. --extern a
$ ./b
thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
  left: `0x561f15182780`,
 right: `0x561f15182660`'

The general issue is similar to #79738. In this case a function pointer is represented with GlobalAlloc::Function(Instance<'tcx>), which does not uniquely identify function after codegen.

cc @oli-obk

@rustbot modify labels: +A-codegen +A-const-eval

@tmiasko tmiasko added the C-bug Category: This is a bug. label Apr 26, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added A-codegen Area: Code generation A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) labels Apr 26, 2021
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Hm, yeah this looks like #79738 -- but #79738 is more clear since function pointers additionally have a very unstable notion of equality.

@tmiasko do you think this is worth tracking separately from #79738?

@tmiasko
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmiasko commented May 23, 2021

With functions being anonymous allocations being duplicated? Sure, we can close this favour of #79738.

@tmiasko tmiasko closed this as completed May 23, 2021
@tmiasko tmiasko reopened this Apr 11, 2024
@tmiasko
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmiasko commented Apr 11, 2024

Reopening since the fix for #79738, is not sufficient to resolve this issue.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

I think that's exactly what I talked about here, right? The "value" of the static is some AllocId aka some Instance, but actually the same Instance can turn into different function pointers when used in different crates.

But, is there even a way to tell LLVM that b::F want to point to the instance of f::<u32> that was generated inside a?

@tmiasko
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmiasko commented Apr 12, 2024

Yes, it is possible to refer to an instance from a specific crate. This is how share-generics mode is implemented. Presumably, in this case we would like to identify specific instances that would need to be exported, as opposed to exporting all of them.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Apr 13, 2024

Yes, it is possible to refer to an instance from a specific crate.

How are these even identified inside the compiler? An Instance just refers to any copy of the given instance of that function, right?

Presumably, in this case we would like to identify specific instances that would need to be exported, as opposed to exporting all of them.

So the "instance in the other crate" that we want to refer to needs to be exported before we can reference it?

Yes we'd only want to export those that show up in the value of some static or const. The monomorphization collector already walks all of them to ensure we create the right mono-items:

GlobalAlloc::Function(fn_instance) => {
if should_codegen_locally(tcx, fn_instance) {
trace!("collecting {:?} with {:#?}", alloc_id, fn_instance);
output.push(create_fn_mono_item(tcx, fn_instance, DUMMY_SP));
}
}

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 13, 2024

We could add a new GlobalAlloc kind that we use in statics to encode function pointers, and then use that to remember which crate a function is from and to always codegen it in the crate of the static if it isn't already codegenned in a dependency. That GlobalAlloc kind will be preserved cross crate and we then need to always refer to the one from the static's crate instead of relying on should_codegen_locally

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Apr 13, 2024 via email

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 13, 2024

Not sure how we'd do that with constants considering we don't know what function pointers they'll contain until we evaluate them downstream (at least if the constant is generic, we could start caching nongeneric or polymorphized constants)

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Apr 13, 2024 via email

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 13, 2024

Could be with -Zpolymorphize, but I think you're right and we can just always do this, even if it's completely without an effect for constants.

Basically during interning, we also reintern AllocIds that refer to functions, and give them extra information about the crate that they were interned in.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

With -Zpolymorphize, GlobalAlloc::Function should still be "as monomorphic as" the stuff we actually codegen.

IOW, GlobalAlloc::Function is an Instance and that should always be a single well-defined function. We just currently generate many copies of the same function under certain conditions, so we need some way to refer to a particular copy of that function and need to ensure this is reflected in the GlobalAlloc. As a starting point, this should probably be the copy used by whatever the current crate is when we actually compute the value.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-codegen Area: Code generation A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) C-bug Category: This is a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants