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%)

RalfJung · 2024-10-28T17:51:49Z

I'm afraid I have no idea how to further reduce the overhead here, I don't know much about the performance characteristics of the query system. This should be a largely unchanged query and thus basically trivial to cache for incremental builds but there are many things about this I do not understand.

@compiler-errors @nnethercote maybe one of you has an idea?

compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs

compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector/abi_check.rs

nnethercote · 2024-10-30T04:48:59Z

The detailed results for cargo debug incr-unchanged show that the incr_comp_encode_dep_graph query is being called a lot more (see the "Executions delta" column). Is that expected?

veluca93 · 2024-10-30T05:46:24Z

The detailed results for cargo debug incr-unchanged show that the incr_comp_encode_dep_graph query is being called a lot more (see the "Executions delta" column). Is that expected?

That depends on what that query does :-)
This PR adds a new query that is cached on disk and called fairly often, so probably yes.

jieyouxu · 2024-10-30T08:26:10Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-10-30T08:27:23Z

⌛ Trying commit 0fe5f5d with merge 81ef4c3...

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 · 2024-10-30T10:24:28Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 81ef4c3 (81ef4c3f186aa9a8fcbd05199ebb9293eac2657f)

rust-timer · 2024-10-30T11:41:28Z

Finished benchmarking commit (81ef4c3): 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)	2.3%	[0.2%, 6.7%]	50
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[0.4%, 6.2%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[0.2%, 6.7%]	50

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary 2.7%)

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)	2.8%	[1.4%, 5.3%]	28
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.0%, 6.5%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[1.4%, 5.3%]	28

Cycles

Results (primary 5.0%, secondary 6.2%)

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)	5.0%	[0.9%, 11.4%]	39
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.2%	[3.5%, 8.4%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.0%	[0.9%, 11.4%]	39

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 785.104s -> 786.374s (0.16%)
Artifact size: 333.62 MiB -> 333.70 MiB (0.02%)

RalfJung · 2024-10-30T17:51:22Z

Something has gone wrong somewhere -- in your earlier result, the new call_site_abi_missing_features query seems to never be called, now in the latest run it is called 8465 times.

The latest run also has a huge increase in the number of layout_of calls (262500.0%!) compared to the baseline, which didn't occur in the previous run either.

Not sure which of these two runs to trust, but at least one seems quite bogus.

compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs

compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs

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

the8472 · 2024-10-30T22:30:11Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-10-30T22:44:36Z

⌛ Trying commit a0b7398 with merge b0fa643490dcecd6aaca72fbb8a69124265ef9ad...

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 · 2024-10-31T00:41:19Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b0fa643 (b0fa643490dcecd6aaca72fbb8a69124265ef9ad)

rust-timer · 2024-10-31T01:59:23Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b0fa643): 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)	1.3%	[0.3%, 2.8%]	48
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.3%, 2.4%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.3%, 2.8%]	48

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, 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)	2.1%	[1.1%, 4.1%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.2%	[6.2%, 6.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[1.1%, 4.1%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary -1.4%)

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)	3.1%	[0.7%, 5.1%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.5%, 3.8%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.7%	[-7.9%, -2.6%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[0.7%, 5.1%]	29

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 782.919s -> 785.593s (0.34%)
Artifact size: 333.61 MiB -> 333.74 MiB (0.04%)

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

Open

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

RalfJung reviewed Oct 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RalfJung reviewed Oct 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector/abi_check.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

veluca93 force-pushed the abi_checks branch from 75c873a to 05e253d Compare October 28, 2024 19:42

veluca93 force-pushed the abi_checks branch from 05e253d to 0fe5f5d Compare October 30, 2024 08:18

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 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 30, 2024

RalfJung reviewed Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

RalfJung reviewed Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

veluca93 force-pushed the abi_checks branch from 0fe5f5d to a0b7398 Compare October 30, 2024 22:12

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 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 31, 2024

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

RalfJung commented Oct 28, 2024

nnethercote commented Oct 30, 2024

veluca93 commented Oct 30, 2024

jieyouxu commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 30, 2024

RalfJung commented Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

the8472 commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

bors commented Oct 31, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 31, 2024

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

Are you sure you want to change the base?

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

RalfJung commented Oct 28, 2024

nnethercote commented Oct 30, 2024

veluca93 commented Oct 30, 2024

jieyouxu commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 30, 2024

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

RalfJung commented Oct 30, 2024 • edited Loading

the8472 commented Oct 30, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 30, 2024

bors commented Oct 31, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 31, 2024

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

compiler-errors commented Oct 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung commented Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading