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

interpret: make overflowing binops just normal binops #125359

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 23, 2024

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Follow-up to #125173 (Cc @scottmcm)

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 21, 2024

r? @compiler-errors

rustbot has assigned @compiler-errors.
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

@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 May 21, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 21, 2024

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ enum Value<'tcx> {
NullaryOp(NullOp<'tcx>, Ty<'tcx>),
UnaryOp(UnOp, VnIndex),
BinaryOp(BinOp, VnIndex, VnIndex),
CheckedBinaryOp(BinOp, VnIndex, VnIndex),
CheckedBinaryOp(BinOp, VnIndex, VnIndex), // FIXME get rid of this, work like MIR instead
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think there's more clean-up possible here (and in dataflow_const_prop as well), but I'll leave that to someone else.

Cc @cjgillot

let val_field = self.project_field(dest, 0)?;
self.write_scalar(val.to_scalar(), &val_field)?;
let overflowed_field = self.project_field(dest, 1)?;
self.write_scalar(Scalar::from_bool(overflowed), &overflowed_field)?;
Copy link
Member Author

@RalfJung RalfJung May 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removing this code means we now assume that the return type of the WithOverflow ops actually is a ScalarPair. I think we should enforce that our primitive operations return data we can represent with out primitive types, so IMO this is a reasonable assumption. At some point we added the codepath here to account for layout randomization, but looking through the layout code I think tuples are using ReprFlags::default() which will not have RANDOMIZE_LAYOUT set so this shouldn't happen any more?

If we ever make it happen again, we should not randomize tuples of the form ($int, bool).

Looking at codegen I can't see support there for checked-binops returning something that does not have the ScalarPair ABI.

EDIT: Ah, that was in preparation for #97861 which never landed. Seems fine to un-do then, IMO.

Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm May 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 to saying it has to be a scalar pair. We could, potentially, still allow layout randomization on it within that constraint, however -- not that we should do that (at least right now), though.

I think we could add layout-aware scalar-pair constructors (and destructors) that work like

let mut inputs = ArrayVec::<Bx::Value, 2>::new();
let mut input_scalars = ArrayVec::<abi::Scalar, 2>::new();
for field_idx in layout.fields.index_by_increasing_offset() {
let field_idx = FieldIdx::from_usize(field_idx);
let op = self.codegen_operand(bx, &fields[field_idx]);
let values = op.val.immediates_or_place().left_or_else(|p| {
bug!("Field {field_idx:?} is {p:?} making {layout:?}");
});
inputs.extend(values);
let scalars = self.value_kind(op.layout).scalars().unwrap();
input_scalars.extend(scalars);
}
if we needed to.

But yeah, no need to do that for now, and the way we do layout optimizations for structs we put bigger, higher-alignment types first anyway, so (T, bool) will I think always be in that order anyway right now.

(Or we could add a repr(linear) type for WithOverflow<T> that these could return, if needed, though that seems like overkill.)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(To elaborate on this, one thing that cg_ssa does now is that the in-register type doesn't need to be an exact match for the in-memory type. So we could -- potentially and in the future -- do something like allow the 8 possible randomizations of (u32, bool) while still saying that it's a scalar pair.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's for Rvalue::Aggregate, I don't see how it is related.

But yeah we could make ScalarPair more flexible, we just need to add the information at which offset the two fields are living. Then all variants of ($int, bool) can be represented. (Also see here and here for the more general topic of refactoring our Abi handling.)

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

// Overflows must be ignored here.
// The overflowing operators are handled in `handle_assign`.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand why the overflowing operators can't be handled here, but it matches the previous structure where Rvalue::CheckedBinaryOp was handled in handle_assign, not in handle_rvalue, for some reason.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As checked ops return scalar pairs, the routine needs to project the destination as 2 scalars, which handle_rvalue is not designed to do.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would be good to add a comment in the code explaining that.

Comment on lines +288 to +289
self.binary_op(BinOp::SubWithOverflow, &a_offset, &b_offset)?
.to_scalar_pair()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, nice. I like the approach of it returning ImmTy so the method doesn't need to talk about tuples 👍

Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I did a (admittedly fairly quick) scan over this and it seems good to me, but you should probably get a review from someone more familiar with the nuances of CTFE/Miri.

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/operator.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
let (res, overflow) = match un_op {
Not => (self.truncate(!val, layout), false), // bitwise negation, then truncate
let res = match un_op {
Not => self.truncate(!val, layout), // bitwise negation, then truncate
Neg => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nothing to do for this PR: Interesting that we don't have a checked version of neg in mir anywhere. I guess it's like Div in that lowering to MIR deals with that.

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/tcx.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: scottmcm <[email protected]>
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

you should probably get a review from someone more familiar with the nuances of CTFE/Miri.

r? @oli-obk

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned compiler-errors May 22, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented May 22, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

r=me with perf clean. I'll give the known panics pass another look for more cleanups once this lands

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 22, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 22, 2024
…r=<try>

interpret: make overflowing binops just normal binops

Follow-up to rust-lang#125173 (Cc `@scottmcm)`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 22, 2024

⌛ Trying commit cb53194 with merge d373d09...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 22, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d373d09 (d373d099b91bbb912bf490541af292a7a0a7eee2)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

FWIW I think GVN/const-prop have the more obvious cleanup possibilities. But yeah known-lints can probably also be cleaned up a bit more.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d373d09): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.8% [1.8%, 1.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (primary -2.9%, secondary -2.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.2%, -2.1%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 672.666s -> 674.077s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 315.47 MiB -> 315.95 MiB (0.15%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 22, 2024
fmease added a commit to fmease/rust that referenced this pull request May 22, 2024
…piler-errors

Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen

This came up in rust-lang#125359 (comment) , and looking into it we can just use the `mir::BinOp`s directly instead of `hir::BinOpKind`s.

(AKA rather than going `mir::BinOp` → `hir::BinOpKind` → `IntPredicate`, just go `mir::BinOp` → `IntPredicate`.)
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

Seems clean enough to me -- a barely significant regression that only affects some build configurations of the stress test.

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

Agreed, Ralf. The bot doesn't consider it a regression, and while cycles are unreliable, they're not showing an issue either.
@bors r=oli-obk

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 22, 2024

📌 Commit cb53194 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors 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 May 22, 2024
fmease added a commit to fmease/rust that referenced this pull request May 22, 2024
…piler-errors

Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen

This came up in rust-lang#125359 (comment) , and looking into it we can just use the `mir::BinOp`s directly instead of `hir::BinOpKind`s.

(AKA rather than going `mir::BinOp` → `hir::BinOpKind` → `IntPredicate`, just go `mir::BinOp` → `IntPredicate`.)
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 22, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#125399 - scottmcm:less-hir-in-cg_ssa, r=compiler-errors

Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen

This came up in rust-lang#125359 (comment) , and looking into it we can just use the `mir::BinOp`s directly instead of `hir::BinOpKind`s.

(AKA rather than going `mir::BinOp` → `hir::BinOpKind` → `IntPredicate`, just go `mir::BinOp` → `IntPredicate`.)
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 23, 2024

⌛ Testing commit cb53194 with merge 5293c6a...

github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request May 23, 2024
Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen

This came up in rust-lang/rust#125359 (comment) , and looking into it we can just use the `mir::BinOp`s directly instead of `hir::BinOpKind`s.

(AKA rather than going `mir::BinOp` → `hir::BinOpKind` → `IntPredicate`, just go `mir::BinOp` → `IntPredicate`.)
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 23, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 5293c6a to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 23, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 5293c6a into rust-lang:master May 23, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 23, 2024
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the interpret-overflowing-ops branch May 23, 2024 06:16
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (5293c6a): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 674.126s -> 672.751s (-0.20%)
Artifact size: 315.70 MiB -> 315.57 MiB (-0.04%)

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

Ah, great -- no regressions post-merge so the two "highly reliable" ones pre-merge definitely weren't an issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. 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.

9 participants