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

Prereq1 for async drop - drop & async_fut fields in Drop terminator #129734

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

azhogin
Copy link
Contributor

@azhogin azhogin commented Aug 29, 2024

This is subpart 1 PR of #123948, just for review purposes.

Added Option drop and async_fut fields in Drop terminator for use when Drop terminator is async drop.

drop field has the same meaning as drop field in Yield terminator. We need it because async drop is a hidden Yield, expanded into yield-point in StateTransform (later commits).

async_fut contains local for async drop future, generated by async_fut = async_drop_in_place(droppee) in drop elaboration (later commits).

@rustbot 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 Aug 29, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 29, 2024

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

This PR changes MIR

cc @oli-obk, @RalfJung, @JakobDegen, @davidtwco, @celinval, @vakaras

/// StateTransform pass. In `expand_async_drops` async drops are expanded
/// into one or two yield points with poll ready/pending switch.
/// When a coroutine has any internal async drop, the coroutine drop function will be async
/// (generated by `create_coroutine_drop_shim_async`, not `create_coroutine_drop_shim`).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be worth also discussing async drop in the MirPhase docs. And if any new MIR phase restrictions are added, please make sure to update the MIR validator.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Comment about async drops added in MirPhase:

///  - Async drops: after drop elaboration some drops may become async (`drop`, `async_fut` fields).
///    StateTransform pass will expand those async drops or reset to sync.

Could you, pls, be more specific about "update the MIR validator"? Async drop terminators live from ElaborateDrops to StateTransform pass in transition to MirPhase::Runtime(..). What MIR validator changes do you recommend?

@azhogin azhogin mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2024
@azhogin azhogin marked this pull request as draft August 29, 2024 13:08
@azhogin azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/async-drop-prereq1-new-drop-term-fields branch from 1cffd92 to 482c2c3 Compare August 30, 2024 06:58
@azhogin azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/async-drop-prereq1-new-drop-term-fields branch from 482c2c3 to b45015f Compare September 7, 2024 10:25
@azhogin azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/async-drop-prereq1-new-drop-term-fields branch from b45015f to f954f0c Compare September 8, 2024 12:00
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 23, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #130724) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

r? @nikomatsakis is going to look into this

@rustbot rustbot assigned nikomatsakis and unassigned davidtwco Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants