Use constant eval to do strict mem::uninit/zeroed validity checks #99033
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @nagisa (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift cc @bjorn3 Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? @oli-obk will look at this next week |
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 8, 2022
5225225
commented
Jul 9, 2022
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 9, 2022
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Weird.... I wouldn't expect that check to fail. Both because even under strict checks, you should be able to zero init a sigaction, and we shouldn't be running under strict checks here. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
5225225
force-pushed
the
interpreter-validity-checks
branch
from
837e402 to
b398fa5
Compare
oli-obk
reviewed
Jul 11, 2022
oli-obk
reviewed
Jul 11, 2022
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2022
…, r=oli-obk Use constant eval to do strict mem::uninit/zeroed validity checks I'm not sure about the code organisation here, I just dumped the check in rustc_const_eval at the root. Not hard to move it elsewhere, in any case. Also, this means cranelift codegen intrinsics lose the strict checks, since they don't seem to depend on rustc_const_eval, and I didn't see a point in keeping around two copies. I also left comments in the is_zero_valid methods about "uhhh help how do i do this", those apply to both methods equally. Also rustc_codegen_ssa now depends on rustc_const_eval... is this okay? Pinging `@RalfJung` since you were the one who mentioned this to me, so I'm assuming you're interested. Haven't had a chance to run full tests on this since it's really warm, and it's 1AM, I'll check out any failures/comments in the morning :)
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 12, 2022
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 12, 2022
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 12, 2022
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2022
…, r=oli-obk Use constant eval to do strict mem::uninit/zeroed validity checks I'm not sure about the code organisation here, I just dumped the check in rustc_const_eval at the root. Not hard to move it elsewhere, in any case. Also, this means cranelift codegen intrinsics lose the strict checks, since they don't seem to depend on rustc_const_eval, and I didn't see a point in keeping around two copies. I also left comments in the is_zero_valid methods about "uhhh help how do i do this", those apply to both methods equally. Also rustc_codegen_ssa now depends on rustc_const_eval... is this okay? Pinging `@RalfJung` since you were the one who mentioned this to me, so I'm assuming you're interested. Haven't had a chance to run full tests on this since it's really warm, and it's 1AM, I'll check out any failures/comments in the morning :)
|
failed in rollup |
5225225
force-pushed
the
interpreter-validity-checks
branch
from
ccad3da to
27412d1
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit ccad3da4fca1b55a5c9ce7ffc1e5938efa1bb8b5 has been approved by It is now in the queue for this repository. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
📌 Commit ccad3da4fca1b55a5c9ce7ffc1e5938efa1bb8b5 has been approved by It is now in the queue for this repository. |
|
bors issue, reöpening |
|
@bors r=oli-obk |
|
⌛ Testing commit 27412d1 with merge 665a4971c64ae03bac1ed8656ac292f78ecbc0db... |
|
@bors retry dist-x86_64-apple-alt is hanging (in "complete job" stage of GHA) |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (263edd4): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
4 tasks
JohnTitor
pushed a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2022
…r=oli-obk Use constant eval to do strict mem::uninit/zeroed validity checks I'm not sure about the code organisation here, I just dumped the check in rustc_const_eval at the root. Not hard to move it elsewhere, in any case. Also, this means cranelift codegen intrinsics lose the strict checks, since they don't seem to depend on rustc_const_eval, and I didn't see a point in keeping around two copies. I also left comments in the is_zero_valid methods about "uhhh help how do i do this", those apply to both methods equally. Also rustc_codegen_ssa now depends on rustc_const_eval... is this okay? Pinging `@RalfJung` since you were the one who mentioned this to me, so I'm assuming you're interested. Haven't had a chance to run full tests on this since it's really warm, and it's 1AM, I'll check out any failures/comments in the morning :)
This was referenced Oct 10, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I'm not sure about the code organisation here, I just dumped the check in rustc_const_eval at the root. Not hard to move it elsewhere, in any case.
Also, this means cranelift codegen intrinsics lose the strict checks, since they don't seem to depend on rustc_const_eval, and I didn't see a point in keeping around two copies.
I also left comments in the is_zero_valid methods about "uhhh help how do i do this", those apply to both methods equally.
Also rustc_codegen_ssa now depends on rustc_const_eval... is this okay?
Pinging @RalfJung since you were the one who mentioned this to me, so I'm assuming you're interested.
Haven't had a chance to run full tests on this since it's really warm, and it's 1AM, I'll check out any failures/comments in the morning :)