-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokes #101122
Conversation
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.
Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?
src/mono/mono/mini/mini-arm64.c
Outdated
code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0); | ||
} else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) { | ||
code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset)); | ||
code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0); |
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.
Please add a comment here for clarity.
src/mono/mono/mini/mini-arm64.c
Outdated
} | ||
if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) { | ||
code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset)); | ||
code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0); |
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.
Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror
reg into the SwiftError
argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.
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.
For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError
arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError
"pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError*
out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError*
parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value
member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.
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.
@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror
reg into the SwiftError
to align?
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 believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.
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.
LGTM so far -- thanks!
@@ -2887,7 +2887,8 @@ mono_arch_allocate_vars (MonoCompile *cfg) | |||
offset += size; | |||
|
|||
cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins; | |||
cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21; | |||
if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE) | |||
cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21; |
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.
It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.
Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the |
/azp run runtime-extra-platforms |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
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.
LGTM!
offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t)); | ||
ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg; | ||
ins->inst_offset = offset; |
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.
Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET
offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?
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.
ainfo->offset
was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset
already includes information about the distance.
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.
The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError
is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset
instead of offset
?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?
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.
We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.
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.
@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.
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.
Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset
is always 0 for swifterror
in the get_call_info
.
@lambdageek could you take a look? |
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.
looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.
* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments
* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments
Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010
Works on arm64/amd64.