rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (#116973) #130777

azhogin · 2024-09-24T09:40:26Z

Command line flag -Zreg-struct-return for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux.
This flag enables the same behavior as the abi_return_struct_as_int target spec key.

Tracking issue: Tracking issue: -Zreg-struct-return support in rustc #116973

rustbot · 2024-09-24T09:40:34Z

r? @cjgillot

rustbot has assigned @cjgillot.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Darksonn · 2024-09-24T16:44:42Z

cc @ojeda

rustbot · 2024-09-26T17:35:29Z

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Darksonn · 2024-09-28T11:32:08Z

@rustbot label A-rust-for-linux
@rustbot label A-ABI

compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/mod.rs

Darksonn · 2024-09-28T12:41:45Z

tests/codegen/reg-struct-return.rs

+    // reg-struct-return doesn't work for "Rust" calling conv
+    // CHECK: { i32, i32 } @f2()
+    #[no_mangle]
+    pub extern "Rust" fn f2() -> Foo {
+        Foo { x: 1, y: 2 }
+    }


Why doesn't it work for the Rust calling convention? Is that what we want? I assume that there's a reason we use this flag, but I don't know whether it's just a question of performance or if it's an important mitigation.

@andyhhp Do you know if this matters?

At technical level, "external" abi's are processed a little in different way (another place in code). It is not a big problem to support the same behavior for "Rust" calling conv, I just need to know if it is required.

Why doesn't it work for the Rust calling convention? Is that what we want? I assume that there's a reason we use this flag, but I don't know whether it's just a question of performance or if it's an important mitigation.

@andyhhp Do you know if this matters?

Rust and C need to agree on how to return >GPR sized values, if this happens to be used in either direction.

Whether that is via some bindings using the Rust calling conventions is something I can't answer.

The use of >GPR sized return values is rare in C because it's irritating to set up. You need a struct/typedef with a fairly precise layout, but the code generation improvements are substantial, hence why they do get used occasionally.

The Rust ABI is not stable. C should not call an extern "Rust" fn. This matters for extern "C" fn and a few others. And reusing this code, tuned for extern "C" and other foreign ABIs, for Rust ABI code? Proved incapable of compiling libcore in #130432.

We're not going to be scope-creeping this PR into extern "Rust". That can be addressed alongside the extensive cleanups of our ABI code that it will require.

ojeda · 2024-10-02T15:41:30Z

Cc @vincenzopalazzo who was interested in this.

bors · 2024-10-10T01:59:50Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #131458) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

cjgillot · 2024-10-11T22:26:23Z

I'm not in capacity to review this.
r? compiler

petrochenkov · 2024-10-12T10:28:41Z

r? @workingjubilee

bors · 2024-10-24T02:00:45Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #132079) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

workingjubilee · 2024-10-24T02:31:01Z

compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/abi.rs

+            let is_indirect_not_on_stack = !matches!(arg.layout.abi, Abi::Aggregate { .. })
+                || matches!(arg.mode, PassMode::Indirect { on_stack: false, .. });
+            assert!(is_indirect_not_on_stack, "is_indirect_not_on_stack: {:?}", arg);

            let size = arg.layout.size;
-            if !arg.layout.is_unsized() && size <= Pointer(AddressSpace::DATA).size(cx) {
+            let ptr_size = Pointer(AddressSpace::DATA).size(cx);
+
+            // In x86 we may return 2x pointer sized struct as i64
+            let reg_struct_return_case = tcx.sess.target.arch == "x86"
+                && arg_idx.is_none()
+                && tcx.sess.opts.unstable_opts.reg_struct_return
+                && abi != SpecAbi::RustIntrinsic;
+
+            if !arg.layout.is_unsized()
+                && (size <= ptr_size || (reg_struct_return_case && (size <= 2 * ptr_size)))
+            {


some of this code has moved into rustc_target.

azhogin · 2024-10-29T23:12:54Z

Reverted changes for "Rust" calling conv (flag works only for extern "C"-like calling conventions). Added unstable-book record, error about wrong arch and related test.

workingjubilee · 2024-11-03T22:04:23Z

tests/codegen/reg-struct-return.rs

+#![feature(no_core, lang_items)]
+
+#[lang = "sized"]
+trait Sized {}
+#[lang = "copy"]
+trait Copy {}


You can just use //@ add-core-stubs for this now: #130693

workingjubilee · 2024-11-03T22:20:15Z

tests/codegen/reg-struct-return.rs

We should test this slightly more exhaustively. I'd like to see

single-field structs, too

structs with fields that aren't valid for all bitpatterns, like, say, { bool, bool, i16 }... I am not aware of a reason it should differ in handling, mind.

oddly-shaped structs that don't exactly match the sizes we're looking for, but are under the 64-bit limit, like e.g. { char, bool, u8 }

larger-than-64-bits structs, which obviously shouldn't be changed to integers

tests/codegen/reg-struct-return.rs

…ng#116973)

workingjubilee · 2024-12-05T23:07:18Z

tests/codegen/reg-struct-return.rs

+    // ENABLED: double @f15()
+    // DISABLED: void @f15(ptr {{.*}}sret
+    #[no_mangle]
+    pub extern "C" fn f15() -> FooFloat2 {
+        FooFloat2 { x: 1.0 }
+    }
+
+    // ENABLED: float @f16()
+    // DISABLED: void @f16(ptr {{.*}}sret
+    #[no_mangle]
+    pub extern "C" fn f16() -> FooFloat3 {
+        FooFloat3 { x: 1.0 }
+    }


Hrm. Tried to disable float features and the LLVMIR we emit for matching the C ABI on such a "soft float" target didn't undergo a substantial change.

I should probably take a closer look at that later.

workingjubilee · 2024-12-05T23:12:37Z

This should be purely additive: @bors r+ rollup

bors · 2024-12-05T23:12:40Z

📌 Commit 9aab517 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

… r=workingjubilee rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-lang#116973) Command line flag `-Zreg-struct-return` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux. This flag enables the same behavior as the `abi_return_struct_as_int` target spec key. - Tracking issue: rust-lang#116973

…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#130777 (rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-lang#116973)) - rust-lang#133211 (Extend Miri to correctly pass mutable pointers through FFI) - rust-lang#133294 (crashes: more tests) - rust-lang#133790 (Improve documentation for Vec::extend_from_within) - rust-lang#133930 (rustbook: update to use new mdbook-trpl package from The Book) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#130777 (rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-lang#116973)) - rust-lang#133211 (Extend Miri to correctly pass mutable pointers through FFI) - rust-lang#133790 (Improve documentation for Vec::extend_from_within) - rust-lang#133930 (rustbook: update to use new mdbook-trpl package from The Book) - rust-lang#133931 (Only allow PassMode::Direct for aggregates on wasm when using the C ABI) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup merge of rust-lang#130777 - azhogin:azhogin/reg-struct-return, r=workingjubilee rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-lang#116973) Command line flag `-Zreg-struct-return` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux. This flag enables the same behavior as the `abi_return_struct_as_int` target spec key. - Tracking issue: rust-lang#116973

… r=workingjubilee rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-lang#116973) Command line flag `-Zreg-struct-return` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux. This flag enables the same behavior as the `abi_return_struct_as_int` target spec key. - Tracking issue: rust-lang#116973

rustbot assigned cjgillot Sep 24, 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 Sep 24, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from ad600b5 to d5888d4 Compare September 24, 2024 12:06

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from d5888d4 to 0bb5469 Compare September 24, 2024 14:45

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 0bb5469 to c8970c5 Compare September 24, 2024 16:59

ojeda mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2024

rustc wanted features & bugfixes Rust-for-Linux/linux#355

Open

62 tasks

azhogin marked this pull request as ready for review September 26, 2024 17:35

rustbot added A-rust-for-linux Relevant for the Rust-for-Linux project A-ABI Area: Concerning the application binary interface (ABI) labels Sep 28, 2024

cjgillot reviewed Sep 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

Darksonn reviewed Sep 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from c8970c5 to 44fec08 Compare September 29, 2024 17:58

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 44fec08 to 7e72e24 Compare October 1, 2024 16:48

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 7e72e24 to 8413bba Compare October 3, 2024 18:45

rustbot assigned petrochenkov and unassigned cjgillot Oct 11, 2024

rustbot assigned workingjubilee Oct 12, 2024

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 491526e to 8fedf94 Compare October 22, 2024 16:00

workingjubilee reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 8fedf94 to f3eef25 Compare October 29, 2024 23:10

workingjubilee requested changes Nov 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 3, 2024

ojeda mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2024

Rust unstable features needed for the kernel Rust-for-Linux/linux#2

Open

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from f3eef25 to 3e7266f Compare December 1, 2024 18:12

rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (rust-la…

9aab517

…ng#116973)

azhogin force-pushed the azhogin/reg-struct-return branch from 3e7266f to 9aab517 Compare December 1, 2024 18:14

workingjubilee self-requested a review December 2, 2024 08:15

workingjubilee added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Dec 2, 2024

workingjubilee approved these changes Dec 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 5, 2024

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2024

Rollup of 5 pull requests #133948

Closed

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2024

Rollup of 5 pull requests #133950

Merged

bors merged commit 820ddaf into rust-lang:master Dec 6, 2024
6 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.85.0 milestone Dec 6, 2024

jieyouxu added the -Zreg-struct-return Unstable option: -Zreg-struct-return label Aug 24, 2025

rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (#116973) #130777

rust_for_linux: -Zreg-struct-return commandline flag for X86 (#116973) #130777

Uh oh!

Conversation

azhogin commented Sep 24, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 24, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Darksonn commented Sep 24, 2024

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 26, 2024

Uh oh!

Darksonn commented Sep 28, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

ojeda commented Oct 2, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 10, 2024

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Oct 11, 2024

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Oct 12, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 24, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

azhogin commented Oct 29, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

workingjubilee commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

11 participants

azhogin commented Sep 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading