Allow intrinsics to use #[fixed_stack_segment], and use it for numeric intrinsics #5975
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This implements the fixed_stack_segment for items with the rust-intrinsic abi, and then uses it to make f32 and f64 use intrinsics where appropriate, but without overflowing stacks and killing canaries (cf. #5686 and #5697). Hopefully.
@pcwalton, the fixed_stack_segment implementation involved mirroring its implementation in
base.rs
intrans_closure
, but without adding theset_no_inline
(reasoning: that would defeat the purpose of intrinsics), which is possibly incorrect.I'm a little hazy about how the underlying structure works, so I've annotated the 4 that have caused problems so far, but there's no guarantee that the other intrinsics are entirely well-behaved.
Anyway, it has good results (the following are just summing the result of each function for 1 up to 100 million):
So about 3x faster on average for f32, and 1.7x for f64. This isn't exactly apples to apples though, since this patch also adds #[inline(always)] to all the function definitions too, which possibly gives a speedup.
(fwiw, GitHub is showing 93c0888 after d9c54f8 (since I cherry-picked the latter from #5697), but git's order is the other way.)