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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
document ABI compatibility #115476
document ABI compatibility #115476
Changes from all commits
281d8cc
044d057
52d22ea
8f03a55
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 isn't just about function pointers. If a function is declared
external "ABI"
in Rust then the called function must have that ABI. Or if the function is declared justextern
orextern "C"
then it must have the default ABI (C compilers let you override the ABI of a function, or the function may be written in assembly language specifically for one calling convention).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.
Where do we document and guarantee what one has to do when linking multiple Rust objects together? Do we even support that with
extern "Rust"
functions?We have to put these docs somewhere, and function pointers are the only way to trigger these issues inside the language (without exotic things such as
dlopen
or manually linking things together), so I figured this would make sense. If you can think of a better place where we can put this, I can move it.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 understand from seeing other issues why you see "inside the language" as a useful initial scope because that's what seems to matter for the SIMD stuff. I don't object to that.
IME people are much more likely to run into ABI issues in cross-language situations since there are no guardrails at all, so I hope we at least are open to solving the issue for cross-language cases too. Perhaps that means adding similar language to the documentation of
extern
and then factoring out the commonality to some top-level section of the language reference, in a future PR.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.
Fully agreed. It's also a much less defined space, you basically have to define "which C type and ABI is compatible with which Rust type and ABI" (and then potentially also which C++/Julia/whatever type, though I guess we can rely on those languages saying which C types their types are compatible with). This depends on the target and honestly I'm quickly out of my depth for those questions. ABI still surprises me with new nightmares every few weeks, so I'm sure there's more to come.
I do hope someone will pick this up eventually.
Of course we are, I didn't want to give any indication to the contrary! It's just not the problem I want to solve right now. It's not on my own personal todo list either, at the moment.
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 could be declared stable and relied on for code that is
#[cfg]
'd for a specific target. Though it sounds like we aren't declaring any of those stable right now.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.
Yes, it could, but this PR for now takes the stance that we shouldn't do that.
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 don't see why we shouldn't, but also not opposed to leaving this until we find a use case.
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.
One obvious case would be
usize
vsu64
on 64 bit platforms (andu32
,u16
etc).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.
That sounds more like a case we might want to add to the list:
usize
is compatible with theuN
type of the same size; and similar forisize
.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.
Which wording would you propose here? "There might be other stable things but we won't tell you which" is useless. And we certainly don't want to promise "anything that's incidentally ABI-compat on some target will remain ABI-compat on that target". So I think we only have two options:
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.
@chorman0773 can you double-checking this new section, does this sound accurate?
@rust-lang/opsem please also 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.
Does this mean we need to declare the target features in every
extern "C"
declaration?In general it would be helpful to generalize the discussion here to also handle cases where pointers are not involved but instead
extern "ABI"
is used to declare a non-Rust function that is then called from Rust.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.
As mentioned above I strongly want to avoid scope creep to non-Rust calls here. That's a much more complicated discussion.