-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Prevent .eh_frame
from being emitted for -C panic=abort
#112403
Merged
+26
−1
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
# only-linux | ||
# | ||
# This test ensures that `panic=abort` code (without `C-unwind`, that is) should not have any | ||
# unwinding related `.eh_frame` sections emitted. | ||
|
||
include ../tools.mk | ||
|
||
all: | ||
$(RUSTC) foo.rs --crate-type=lib --emit=obj=$(TMPDIR)/foo.o -Cpanic=abort | ||
objdump --dwarf=frames $(TMPDIR)/foo.o | $(CGREP) -v 'DW_CFA' |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
#![no_std] | ||
|
||
#[panic_handler] | ||
fn handler(_: &core::panic::PanicInfo<'_>) -> ! { | ||
loop {} | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub unsafe fn oops(x: *const u32) -> u32 { | ||
*x | ||
} |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 feels like something we're going to regress on with the next similar check in MIR -- can we introduce another run of AbortUnwindingCalls or otherwise make this more general?
(I'm not super familiar with mir opts so not sure if that pass is very expensive).
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.
Currently this pass is the only pass that can add a new call, and given that this pass is only enabled with debug assertions, re-running
AbortUnwindingCalls
feels a bit unnecessary?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.
can we run
AbortUnwindingCalls
after it (or rather, run the alignment checks before it)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.
alternatively, MIR validation could check that no normal unwind actions are present on panic=abort
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.
UnwindAction::Terminate may be present in
-Cpanic=abort
whenC-unwind
is used so we couldn't just do it in validation.Lifting the
CheckAlignment
pass might make sense.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.
terminate existing with panic=unwind could happen, but other unwind actions with panic=abort shouldn't, right? that could be validated
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.
That's entirely orthogonal to this PR though.
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 just checked we couldn't lift
CheckAlignment
, because alignment checks are not doable for CTFE, so it must stay as an optimization pass. We also couldn't delayAbortUnwindingCalls
, because it needs to be run before generator lowering.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 I understood @saethlin correctly, this could be
Unreachable
always?Either way there should be a comment explaining why this is unreachable. "Because we use the non-unwinding panic machinery" seems like a good answer to me; it is explicitly intended to not unwind so I have no issue with this non-local dependency.
EDIT: Ah, #112599 already did this. :)