Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. #132173

veluca93 · 2024-10-26T07:37:46Z

On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.)

As discussed in rust-lang/lang-team#235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.

This commit makes it a post-monomorphization future-incompat warning to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI.

See the nomination comment for more discussion.

Part of #116558

r? RalfJung

jieyouxu · 2024-10-26T09:01:21Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.) As discussed in rust-lang/lang-team#235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code. This commit makes it a post-monomorphization future-incompat warning to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI. See the [nomination comment](rust-lang#127731 (comment)) for more discussion. Part of rust-lang#116558 r? RalfJung

bors · 2024-10-26T09:02:33Z

⌛ Trying commit 4526613 with merge bbf9ed8...

RalfJung · 2024-10-26T09:13:36Z

The collector always runs, so likely we'll have to make this new check a query to avoid the perf issues.

For the declaration-site check this should be fairly easy, we can pass in the monomorphized instance and that has everything we need. The call-site check is more tricky since the inputs currently are (callee_ty, *fn_span, self.body.source.instance). AFAIK we usually avoid passing a span into a query as those are quite unstable, but not sure what else to do here?
Cc @compiler-errors

bors · 2024-10-26T10:56:30Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bbf9ed8 (bbf9ed8a41f053260da986cd0252b156f3866520)

rust-timer · 2024-10-26T12:14:13Z

Finished benchmarking commit (bbf9ed8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.1%	[0.3%, 16.8%]	75
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[0.1%, 29.4%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.1%	[0.3%, 16.8%]	75

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.2%, secondary 3.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.2%	[1.0%, 10.1%]	68
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[0.9%, 6.1%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.2%	[1.0%, 10.1%]	68

Cycles

Results (primary 11.1%, secondary 12.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	11.1%	[1.2%, 26.2%]	56
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	17.3%	[2.9%, 38.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.9%, -2.9%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	11.1%	[1.2%, 26.2%]	56

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 785.03s -> 787.479s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 333.74 MiB -> 333.57 MiB (-0.05%)

veluca93 · 2024-10-26T14:18:26Z

@jieyouxu / @RalfJung could I get another perf run?

jieyouxu · 2024-10-26T14:28:47Z

You'll probably need to fix the compilation error to make it buildable, but yes

compiler-errors · 2024-10-26T16:27:15Z

The call-site check is more tricky since the inputs currently are (callee_ty, *fn_span, self.body.source.instance).

@RalfJung: Why not just make the query something like (callee_ty, instance) which then returns some "status" or something that captures "should we emit a lint?" that you then use at the call-site to turn into a lint, rather than making the query responsible for emitting the lint? I agree that you almost never want to pass a span to a query.

veluca93 · 2024-10-26T16:54:34Z

The call-site check is more tricky since the inputs currently are (callee_ty, *fn_span, self.body.source.instance).

@RalfJung: Why not just make the query something like (callee_ty, instance) which then returns some "status" or something that captures "should we emit a lint?" that you then use at the call-site to turn into a lint, rather than making the query responsible for emitting the lint? I agree that you almost never want to pass a span to a query.

I thought of doing the same too - I also gave up on the previous attempt since that got in a somewhat annoying rabbit hole.
Should be ready for a perf run now!

saethlin · 2024-10-26T20:03:48Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.) As discussed in rust-lang/lang-team#235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code. This commit makes it a post-monomorphization future-incompat warning to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI. See the [nomination comment](rust-lang#127731 (comment)) for more discussion. Part of rust-lang#116558 r? RalfJung

bors · 2024-10-26T20:05:00Z

⌛ Trying commit 75c873a with merge 95e2c91...

bors · 2024-10-26T21:56:16Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 95e2c91 (95e2c91a1f2db67bbad2800a9838d921ab01cbbb)

rust-timer · 2024-10-27T00:16:15Z

Finished benchmarking commit (95e2c91): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	[0.2%, 3.8%]	48
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.0%, 2.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[0.2%, 3.8%]	48

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary -0.8%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[1.4%, 6.5%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.4%	[4.4%, 4.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-4.0%, -0.4%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[-1.8%, 6.5%]	22

Cycles

Results (primary 3.2%, secondary 3.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.2%	[1.6%, 6.3%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[1.6%, 6.3%]	29

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 783.187s -> 786.602s (0.44%)
Artifact size: 333.73 MiB -> 333.78 MiB (0.02%)

matthiaskrgr · 2024-11-09T23:32:48Z

@bors retry

bors · 2024-11-10T02:52:28Z

⌛ Testing commit c8b76bc with merge 7660aed...

bors · 2024-11-10T05:53:06Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: RalfJung,compiler-errors
Pushing 7660aed to master...

rust-timer · 2024-11-10T07:09:25Z

Finished benchmarking commit (7660aed): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
a new PR with a fix for the regression.
If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 1.0%]	36
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.4%, 1.0%]	37

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.2%, secondary 0.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.8%	[0.8%, 11.6%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[2.6%, 6.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.6%, -1.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[-1.8%, 11.6%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 1.2%, secondary 2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.6%, 1.9%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.7%, 3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[0.6%, 1.9%]	8

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 780.152s -> 784.572s (0.57%)
Artifact size: 335.33 MiB -> 335.21 MiB (-0.03%)

RalfJung · 2024-11-10T08:41:39Z

That's about as expected -- it's the best we managed after a whole bunch of experimentation: one fully cached extra query per monomorphized function.

…iler-errors Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.) As discussed in rust-lang/lang-team#235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code. This commit makes it a post-monomorphization future-incompat warning to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI. See the [nomination comment](rust-lang#127731 (comment)) for more discussion. Part of rust-lang#116558 r? RalfJung

…jubilee ABI checks: add support for some tier3 arches, warn on others. Followup to - rust-lang#132842 - rust-lang#132173 - rust-lang#131800 r? `@workingjubilee`

…ngjubilee ABI checks: add support for some tier3 arches, warn on others. Followup to - rust-lang#132842 - rust-lang#132173 - rust-lang#131800 r? `@workingjubilee`

…ngjubilee ABI checks: add support for some tier3 arches, warn on others. Followup to - rust-lang#132842 - rust-lang#132173 - rust-lang#131800 r? ``@workingjubilee``

Rollup merge of rust-lang#133029 - veluca93:abi-checks-tier3, r=workingjubilee ABI checks: add support for some tier3 arches, warn on others. Followup to - rust-lang#132842 - rust-lang#132173 - rust-lang#131800 r? ``@workingjubilee``

…er-errors,uweigand Support s390x z13 vector ABI cc rust-lang#130869 This resolves the following fixmes: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/58420a065b68ecb3eec03b942740c761cdadd5c4/compiler/rustc_target/src/abi/call/s390x.rs#L1-L2 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/58420a065b68ecb3eec03b942740c761cdadd5c4/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/targets/s390x_unknown_linux_gnu.rs#L9-L11 Refs: Section 1.2.3 "Parameter Passing" and section 1.2.5 "Return Values" in ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement, Version 1.6.1 (lzsabi_s390x.pdf in https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/tag/v1.6.1) This PR extends ~~rust-lang#127731 rust-lang#132173 (merged) 's ABI check to handle cases where `vector` target feature is disabled. If we do not do ABI check, we run into the ABI problems as described in rust-lang#116558 and rust-lang#130869 (comment), and the problem of the compiler generating strange code (rust-lang#131586 (comment)). cc `@uweigand` `@rustbot` label +O-SystemZ +A-ABI

Rollup merge of rust-lang#131586 - taiki-e:s390x-vector-abi, r=compiler-errors,uweigand Support s390x z13 vector ABI cc rust-lang#130869 This resolves the following fixmes: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/58420a065b68ecb3eec03b942740c761cdadd5c4/compiler/rustc_target/src/abi/call/s390x.rs#L1-L2 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/58420a065b68ecb3eec03b942740c761cdadd5c4/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/targets/s390x_unknown_linux_gnu.rs#L9-L11 Refs: Section 1.2.3 "Parameter Passing" and section 1.2.5 "Return Values" in ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement, Version 1.6.1 (lzsabi_s390x.pdf in https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/tag/v1.6.1) This PR extends ~~rust-lang#127731 rust-lang#132173 (merged) 's ABI check to handle cases where `vector` target feature is disabled. If we do not do ABI check, we run into the ABI problems as described in rust-lang#116558 and rust-lang#130869 (comment), and the problem of the compiler generating strange code (rust-lang#131586 (comment)). cc `@uweigand` `@rustbot` label +O-SystemZ +A-ABI

rustbot assigned RalfJung Oct 26, 2024

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Oct 26, 2024

veluca93 force-pushed the abi_checks branch from 4526613 to cc25da0 Compare October 26, 2024 14:18

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Mark-Simulacrum mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2024

ABI compatibility: remove section on target features #132136

Merged

veluca93 force-pushed the abi_checks branch from cc25da0 to 75c873a Compare October 26, 2024 16:53

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 9, 2024

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 9, 2024

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 10, 2024

bors merged commit 7660aed into rust-lang:master Nov 10, 2024
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.84.0 milestone Nov 10, 2024

bors mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2024

MIR-only rlibs #119017

Draft

taiki-e mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2024

Support s390x z13 vector ABI #131586

Merged

bors mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2024

Querify MonoItem collection #132566

Merged

Mark-Simulacrum added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Nov 11, 2024

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2024

ICE: incr comp: Found unstable fingerprints for evaluate_obligation(8f08a58f2dfc7c26-cf3563aa40998e2c): Err(Canonical) #132884

Open

workingjubilee mentioned this pull request Nov 16, 2024

ABI checks: add support for some tier3 arches, warn on others. #133029

Merged

RalfJung mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2024

Tracking issue for target_feature 1.1 RFC #69098

Open

10 tasks

eddyb mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2024

Hack around blockers to update toolchain all the way to nightly-2024-11-22 (~1.84). Rust-GPU/rust-gpu#170

Merged

veluca93 mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2024

Stabilize target_feature_11 #134090

Open

This was referenced Dec 23, 2024

regression: ICE: Layout::compute: unexpected type _ #134706

Open

regression: error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement (related to pin-project) #134709

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. #132173

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. #132173

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

jieyouxu commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

RalfJung commented Oct 26, 2024

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 26, 2024

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

jieyouxu commented Oct 26, 2024

compiler-errors commented Oct 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

saethlin commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 27, 2024

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 9, 2024

bors commented Nov 10, 2024

bors commented Nov 10, 2024

rust-timer commented Nov 10, 2024

RalfJung commented Nov 10, 2024

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. #132173

Emit warning when calling/declaring functions with unavailable vectors. #132173

Conversation

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

jieyouxu commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

RalfJung commented Oct 26, 2024

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 26, 2024

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

jieyouxu commented Oct 26, 2024

compiler-errors commented Oct 26, 2024 • edited Loading

veluca93 commented Oct 26, 2024

saethlin commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

bors commented Oct 26, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 27, 2024

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 9, 2024

bors commented Nov 10, 2024

bors commented Nov 10, 2024

rust-timer commented Nov 10, 2024

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

RalfJung commented Nov 10, 2024

compiler-errors commented Oct 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading