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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
fix nounwind attribute logic #63909
fix nounwind attribute logic #63909
Changes from 2 commits
2201adc
edcfc26
dcf3a47
47e4193
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.
This part of the test seems dubious to me. Wouldn't code that bubbles Rust panics through C (the kind of code for which #62603 got merged) also have an
extern "C"
declaration like this where the panic enters back into Rust?This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
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.
We don't have a stable vs nightly difference in semantics. That would be a bad mess.
We document panicking from
extern "C"
as UB, but (similar to #62825) are willing to patch things such that code exploiting this UB is not broken until we provide adequate alternatives to said code.So, I think this function should not be
unwind
. I am waiting for @alexcrichton to confirm.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.
This is right. The check should say
CHECK-NOT: nounwind
.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 believe this is correct, all imported FFI functions, by default, should be tagged with
nounwind
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.
But doesn't this mean that when e.g. mozjpeg calls C that calls Rust (the situation due to which #62603 was accepted), and a panic passes from C to Rust, we still violate
nounwind
?This PR removes the
nounwind
on the first edge the panic crosses (Rust -> C), but there's another edge (C -> Rust) and we should not havenounwind
there either.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, that's correct, that is, the check should be
CHECK-NOT: nounwind
. Otherwise, the second example in #63943, which is equivalent to mozjpeg use case, would still be miscompiled.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.
Okay, I have implemented that.
This file was deleted.