Skip to content

Use LLVMIntrinsicGetDeclaration to completely remove the hardcoded intrinsics list #142521

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 16, 2025

Conversation

sayantn
Copy link
Contributor

@sayantn sayantn commented Jun 14, 2025

Follow-up to #142259

This also needs a rustc-perf run, because Intrinsic::getType can be expensive

@rustbot label A-LLVM A-codegen T-compiler
r? @workingjubilee
cc @nikic

@rustbot rustbot added A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. 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. A-codegen Area: Code generation labels Jun 14, 2025
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 14, 2025
Use `LLVMIntrinsicGetDeclaration` to completely remove the hardcoded intrinsics list

Follow-up to #142259

This also needs a rustc-perf run, because `Intrinsic::getType` can be expensive

`@rustbot` label A-LLVM A-codegen T-compiler
r? `@workingjubilee`
cc `@nikic`
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 14, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 10a73c9 with merge 5e963b3

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 14, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

hum.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 14, 2025

💔 Test failed

@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 14, 2025

interesting segfault, I have a suspicion that this is due to get_type_of_global. Let me try without that

@sayantn sayantn force-pushed the simplify-intrinsics branch from 10a73c9 to 7504607 Compare June 15, 2025 00:00
@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

ah, so it was due to a mistake in the last PR, it didn't have any type parameters for llvm.threadlocal.address, where it should have 1 (surprisingly LLVMCopyOverloadedName2 didn't complain about this)

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

Oh, distressing.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors2 try

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 15, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 7504607 with merge 904f591

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2025
Use `LLVMIntrinsicGetDeclaration` to completely remove the hardcoded intrinsics list

Follow-up to #142259

This also needs a rustc-perf run, because `Intrinsic::getType` can be expensive

`@rustbot` label A-LLVM A-codegen T-compiler
r? `@workingjubilee`
cc `@nikic`
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2025
Use `LLVMIntrinsicGetDeclaration` to completely remove the hardcoded intrinsics list

Follow-up to #142259

This also needs a rustc-perf run, because `Intrinsic::getType` can be expensive

`@rustbot` label A-LLVM A-codegen T-compiler
r? `@workingjubilee`
cc `@nikic`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 7504607 with merge f92eca7...

@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

is bors ghosting us now?

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

oh no, the latency.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors2 try cancel

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 15, 2025

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

AHA, MY PLAN WAS TO TEST THE CANCEL FUNCTION ALL ALONG

@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

that is some serious difference in latency.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f92eca7 (f92eca7e3359f7ee0ba466a9b35495d947e2d602)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f92eca7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.4% [-1.4%, -1.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.4% [-1.4%, -1.4%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.5% [2.5%, 2.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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: 758.463s -> 757.066s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 372.25 MiB -> 372.23 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 15, 2025
@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

Yay! No perf regression ❤️

@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ pub(crate) struct FullCx<'ll, 'tcx> {
pub rust_try_fn: Cell<Option<(&'ll Type, &'ll Value)>>,

intrinsics:
RefCell<FxHashMap<(&'static str, SmallVec<[&'ll Type; 2]>), (&'ll Type, &'ll Value)>>,
RefCell<FxHashMap<(Cow<'static, str>, SmallVec<[&'ll Type; 2]>), (&'ll Type, &'ll Value)>>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did this become a Cow because previously everything was indirected via the &'static strs in declare_intrinsic, and now no longer is?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just wanted to reduce some allocations (because most intrinsic names are string literals, but some are generated by format!). String would work as well. Should I change it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It should be fine.

@sayantn sayantn force-pushed the simplify-intrinsics branch from 7504607 to 3dc8ebc Compare June 15, 2025 16:45
Copy link
Contributor

@nikic nikic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

There is one more place where we should use val_ty instead of type_ptr - in va_copy. But there the LLVM signature is (0, 0) -> void, and the Rust signature is like (*mut T, &T) -> void. Is it guaranteed that *mut T and &T have the same LLVM address space (T is Sized)? Otherwise we might need to add some addressspacecasts to make it sound.

@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Jun 15, 2025

There is one more place where we should use val_ty instead of type_ptr - in va_copy. But there the LLVM signature is (0, 0) -> void, and the Rust signature is like (*mut T, &T) -> void. Is it guaranteed that *mut T and &T have the same LLVM address space (T is Sized)? Otherwise we might need to add some addressspacecasts to make it sound.

Yes, I believe this is guaranteed.

@sayantn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sayantn commented Jun 15, 2025

Nice, then I am changing that too

edit: I mean using val_ty instead of type_ptr

@sayantn sayantn force-pushed the simplify-intrinsics branch from 3dc8ebc to a9500d6 Compare June 15, 2025 17:19
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2025

📌 Commit a9500d6 has been approved by workingjubilee

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 Jun 15, 2025
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors r=nikic,workingjubilee

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2025

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2025

📌 Commit a9500d6 has been approved by nikic,workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 16, 2025

⌛ Testing commit a9500d6 with merge 68ac5ab...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 16, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikic,workingjubilee
Pushing 68ac5ab to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 16, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 68ac5ab into rust-lang:master Jun 16, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone Jun 16, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing e314b97 (parent) -> 68ac5ab (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 68ac5abb067806a88464ddbfbd3c7eec877b488d --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. x86_64-apple-2: 4492.8s -> 3437.3s (-23.5%)
  2. dist-x86_64-apple: 9719.0s -> 11073.5s (13.9%)
  3. i686-gnu-2: 6098.5s -> 5398.0s (-11.5%)
  4. mingw-check-1: 1877.1s -> 1685.1s (-10.2%)
  5. x86_64-apple-1: 7080.0s -> 6425.2s (-9.2%)
  6. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2831.3s -> 2578.8s (-8.9%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-aux: 6486.8s -> 5916.8s (-8.8%)
  8. i686-gnu-1: 8029.5s -> 7324.0s (-8.8%)
  9. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 8000.6s -> 7313.0s (-8.6%)
  10. arm-android: 5946.2s -> 5473.2s (-8.0%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (68ac5ab): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary -9.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-9.4% [-9.4%, -9.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 756.881s -> 757.272s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 372.07 MiB -> 372.17 MiB (0.03%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-codegen Area: Code generation A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. 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.

8 participants