Rollup of 7 pull requests #95941
Closed
Rollup of 7 pull requests #95941
Conversation
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
Co-authored-by: Amanieu d'Antras <amanieu@gmail.com>
We may sometimes emit an `invoke` instead of a `call` for inline assembly during the MIR -> LLVM IR lowering. But we failed to update the IR builder's current basic block before writing the results to the outputs. This would result in invalid IR because the basic block would end in a `store` instruction, which isn't a valid terminator.
Specifically, make it clear that it is immediately UB to pass ill-formed UTF-8 into the function. The previous wording left space to interpret that the UB only occurred when calling another function, which "assumes that `&str`s are valid UTF-8." This does not change whether str being UTF-8 is a safety or a validity invariant. (As per previous discussion, it is a safety invariant, not a validity invariant.) It just makes it clear that valid UTF-8 is a precondition of str::from_utf8_unchecked, and that emitting an Abstract Machine fault (e.g. UB or a sanitizer error) on invalid UTF-8 is a valid thing to do. If user code wants to create an unsafe `&str` pointing to ill-formed UTF-8, it must be done via transmutes. Also, just, don't.
Bootstrap already allows selecting these in `PathSet::has`, which allows any string that matches the end of a full path. I found these by adding `assert!(path.exists())` in `StepDescription::paths`. I think ideally we wouldn't have any aliases that aren't paths, but I've held off on enforcing that here since it may be controversial, I'll open a separate PR.
These paths (`_cranelift` and `_gcc`) are somewhat misleading, since they actually tell bootstrap to build *all* codegen backends. But this seems like a useful improvement in the meantime.
Document the current MIR semantics that are clear from existing code This PR adds documentation to places, operands, rvalues, statementkinds, and terminatorkinds that describes their existing semantics and requirements. In many places the semantics depend on the Rust memory model or other T-Lang decisions - when this is the case, it is just noted as such with links to UCG issues where possible. I'm hopeful that none of the documentation added here can be used to justify optimizations that depend on the memory model. The documentation for places and operands probably comes closest to running afoul of this - if people think that it cannot be merged as is, it can definitely also be taken out. The goal here is to only document parts of MIR that seem to be decided already, or are at least depended on by existing code. That leaves quite a number of open questions - those are marked as "needs clarification." I'm not sure what to do with those in this PR - we obviously can't decide all these questions here. Should I just leave them in as is? Take them out? Keep them in but as `//` instead of `///` comments? If this is too big to review at once, I can split this up. r? rust-lang/mir-opt
Replace RwLock by a futex based one on Linux This replaces the pthread-based RwLock on Linux by a futex based one. This implementation is similar to [the algorithm](https://gist.github.com/kprotty/3042436aa55620d8ebcddf2bf25668bc) suggested by `@kprotty,` but modified to prefer writers and spin before sleeping. It uses two futexes: One for the readers to wait on, and one for the writers to wait on. The readers futex contains the state of the RwLock: The number of readers, a bit indicating whether writers are waiting, and a bit indicating whether readers are waiting. The writers futex is used as a simple condition variable and its contents are meaningless; it just needs to be changed on every notification. Using two futexes rather than one has the obvious advantage of allowing a separate queue for readers and writers, but it also means we avoid the problem a single-futex RwLock would have of making it hard for a writer to go to sleep while the number of readers is rapidly changing up and down, as the writers futex is only changed when we actually want to wake up a writer. It always prefers writers, as we decided [here](rust-lang#93740 (comment)). To be able to prefer writers, it relies on futex_wake to return the number of awoken threads to be able to handle write-unlocking while both the readers-waiting and writers-waiting bits are set. Instead of waking both and letting them race, it first wakes writers and only continues to wake the readers too if futex_wake reported there were no writers to wake up. r? `@Amanieu`
…compile, r=Amanieu
Fix miscompilation of inline assembly with outputs in cases where we emit an invoke instead of call instruction.
We ran into this bug where rustc would segfault while trying to compile certain uses of inline assembly.
Here is a simple repro that demonstrates the issue:
```rust
#![feature(asm_unwind)]
fn main() {
let _x = String::from("string here just cause we need something with a non-trivial drop");
let foo: u64;
unsafe {
std::arch::asm!(
"mov {}, 1",
out(reg) foo,
options(may_unwind)
);
}
println!("{}", foo);
}
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7d6641e83370d2536a07234aca2498ff))
But crucially `feature(asm_unwind)` is not actually needed and this can be triggered on stable as a result of the way async functions/generators are handled in the compiler. e.g.:
```rust
extern crate futures; // 0.3.21
async fn bar() {
let foo: u64;
unsafe {
std::arch::asm!(
"mov {}, 1",
out(reg) foo,
);
}
println!("{}", foo);
}
fn main() {
futures::executor::block_on(bar());
}
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=1c7781c34dd4a3e80ae4bd936a0c82fc))
An example of the incorrect LLVM generated:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%1 = invoke i64 asm sideeffect alignstack inteldialect unwind "mov ${0:q}, 1", "=&r,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"()
to label %bb2 unwind label %cleanup, !srcloc !9
store i64 %1, i64* %foo, align 8
bb2:
[...snip...]
```
The store should not be placed after the asm invoke but rather should be in the normal control flow basic block (`bb2` in this case).
[Here](https://gist.github.com/luqmana/be1af5b64d2cda5a533e3e23a7830b44) is a writeup of the investigation that lead to finding this.
Fix formatting error in pin.rs docs Not sure if there's more formatting issues I missed; I kinda lost interest reading midway through.
Clarify str::from_utf8_unchecked's invariants Specifically, make it clear that it is immediately UB to pass ill-formed UTF-8 into the function. The previous wording left space to interpret that the UB only occurred when calling another function, which "assumes that `&str`s are valid UTF-8." This does not change whether str being UTF-8 is a safety or a validity invariant. (As per previous discussion, it is a safety invariant, not a validity invariant.) It just makes it clear that valid UTF-8 is a precondition of str::from_utf8_unchecked, and that emitting an Abstract Machine fault (e.g. UB or a sanitizer error) on invalid UTF-8 is a valid thing to do. If user code wants to create an unsafe `&str` pointing to ill-formed UTF-8, it must be done via transmutes. Also, just, don't. Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-lang.2Fwg-unsafe-code-guidelines/topic/str.3A.3Afrom_utf8_unchecked.20Safety.20requirement
…Mark-Simulacrum
Remove duplicate aliases for `check codegen_{cranelift,gcc}` and fix `build codegen_gcc`
* Remove duplicate aliases
Bootstrap already allows selecting these in `PathSet::has`, which allows
any string that matches the end of a full path.
I found these by adding `assert!(path.exists())` in `StepDescription::paths`.
I think ideally we wouldn't have any aliases that aren't paths, but I've held
off on enforcing that here since it may be controversial, I'll open a separate PR.
* Add `build compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc` as an alias for `CodegenBackend`
These paths (`_cranelift` and `_gcc`) are somewhat misleading, since they
actually tell bootstrap to build *all* codegen backends. But this seems like
a useful improvement in the meantime.
cc ``@bjorn3`` ``@antoyo``
CI: do not compile libcore twice when performing LLVM PGO I forgot the delete the first compilation when modifying this file in a previous PR. r? ``@lqd``
rustbot
added
T-compiler
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
|
📌 Commit 633e004 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@bors r- |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #95125) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Successful merges:
check codegen_{cranelift,gcc}and fixbuild codegen_gcc#95901 (Remove duplicate aliases forcheck codegen_{cranelift,gcc}and fixbuild codegen_gcc)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup