Skip to content
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

Drop flag statement creation depends on FxHashMap interation order #91943

Closed
Aaron1011 opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #110962
Closed

Drop flag statement creation depends on FxHashMap interation order #91943

Aaron1011 opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #110962
Labels
C-bug Category: This is a bug. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Aaron1011
Copy link
Member

This code creates MIR statements based on an FxHashMap iteration order:

for flag in self.drop_flags.values() {
self.patch.add_assign(loc, Place::from(*flag), false_.clone());
}

drop_flags is defined as:

drop_flags: FxHashMap<MovePathIndex, Local>,

Since FxHashMap's fixed seed is different between 32 and 64 bit platforms, we may end up creating statements in a different order on 32-bit vs 64-bit hosts (the target platform passed to the compiler has no effect).

We should probably sort by MovePathIndex before creating the statements.

@Aaron1011 Aaron1011 added the C-bug Category: This is a bug. label Dec 14, 2021
@camelid camelid added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Dec 15, 2021
@camelid
Copy link
Member

camelid commented Dec 15, 2021

Perhaps it should just use BTreeMap instead?

@pnkfelix pnkfelix added the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label Feb 1, 2022
@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

Revisiting this issue to evaluate the priority.

@pnkfelix unsure about the status and global direction of this issue. Do we have some work in progress somewhere? I've tried following the breadcrumbs and landed on #102698. Unsure if it helps and - if yes - how much does that pull request covers to fix this issue.

opinions? thanks :)

@apiraino apiraino removed the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label Apr 27, 2023
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2023
@bors bors closed this as completed in 7721c73 Apr 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-bug Category: This is a bug. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants