Upstream change
llvm/llvm-project@6b539f5eb8 changed
`isSectionBitcode` works and it now only respects `.llvm.lto` sections
instead of also `.llvmbc`, which it says was never intended to be used
for LTO. We instead load sections by name, and sniff for raw bitcode by
hand.
r? @nikic
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
This reverts #46722, commit e0ab5d5feb.
Since #111167, commit 10b69dde3f, we are
generating DWARF subprograms in a way that is meant to be more compatible
with LLVM's expectations, so hopefully we don't need this workaround
rewriting CUs anymore.
Currently, LLVM profiling runtime counter relocation cannot be
used by rust during LTO because symbols are being internalized
before all symbol information is known.
This mode makes LLVM emit a __llvm_profile_counter_bias symbol
which is referenced by the profiling initialization, which itself
is pulled in by the rust driver here [1].
It is enabled with -Cllvm-args=-runtime-counter-relocation for
platforms which are opt-in to this mode like Linux. On these
platforms there will be no link error, rather just surprising
behavior for a user which request runtime counter relocation.
The profiling runtime will not see that symbol go on as if it
were never there. On Fuchsia, the profiling runtime must have
this symbol which will cause a hard link error.
As an aside, I don't have enough context as to why rust's LTO
model is how it is. AFAICT, the internalize pass is only safe
to run at link time when all symbol information is actually
known, this being an example as to why. I think special casing
this symbol as a known one that LLVM can emit which should not
have it's visbility de-escalated should be fine given how
seldom this pattern of defining an undefined symbol to get
initilization code pulled in is. From a quick grep,
__llvm_profile_runtime is the only symbol that rustc does this
for.
[1] 0265a3e93b/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/back/linker.rs (L598)
The compiler currently has `-Ztime` and `-Ztime-passes`. I've used
`-Ztime-passes` for years but only recently learned about `-Ztime`.
What's the difference? Let's look at the `-Zhelp` output:
```
-Z time=val -- measure time of rustc processes (default: no)
-Z time-passes=val -- measure time of each rustc pass (default: no)
```
The `-Ztime-passes` description is clear, but the `-Ztime` one is less so.
Sounds like it measures the time for the entire process?
No. The real difference is that `-Ztime-passes` prints out info about passes,
and `-Ztime` does the same, but only for a subset of those passes. More
specifically, there is a distinction in the profiling code between a "verbose
generic activity" and an "extra verbose generic activity". `-Ztime-passes`
prints both kinds, while `-Ztime` only prints the first one. (It took me
a close reading of the source code to determine this difference.)
In practice this distinction has low value. Perhaps in the past the "extra
verbose" output was more voluminous, but now that we only print stats for a
pass if it exceeds 5ms or alters the RSS, `-Ztime-passes` is less spammy. Also,
a lot of the "extra verbose" cases are for individual lint passes, and you need
to also use `-Zno-interleave-lints` to see those anyway.
Therefore, this commit removes `-Ztime` and the associated machinery. One thing
to note is that the existing "extra verbose" activities all have an extra
string argument, so the commit adds the ability to accept an extra argument to
the "verbose" activities.
Allow to disable thinLTO buffer to support lto-embed-bitcode lld feature
Hello
This change is to fix issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84395) in which passing "-lto-embed-bitcode=optimized" to lld when linking rust code via linker-plugin-lto doesn't produce the expected result.
Instead of emitting a single unified module into a llvmbc section of the linked elf, it emits multiple submodules.
This is caused because rustc emits the BC modules after running llvm `createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass` pass.
Which in turn triggers a thinLTO linkage and causes the said issue.
This patch allows via compiler flag (-Cemit-thin-lto=<bool>) to select between running `createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass` and `createBitcodeWriterPass`.
Note this pattern of selecting between those 2 passes is common inside of LLVM code.
The default is to match the old behavior.
Revert "Work around invalid DWARF bugs for fat LTO"
Since September, the toolchain has not been generating reliable DWARF
information for static variables when LTO is on. This has affected
projects in the embedded space where the use of LTO is typical. In our
case, it has kept us from bumping past the 2021-09-22 nightly toolchain
lest our debugger break. This has been a pretty dramatic regression for
people using debuggers and static variables. See #90357 for more info
and a repro case.
This commit is a mechanical revert of
d5de680e20 from PR #89041, which caused
the issue. (Note on that PR that the commit's author has requested it be
reverted.)
I have locally verified that this fixes#90357 by restoring the
functionality of both the repro case I posted on that bug, and debugger
behavior on real programs. There do not appear to be test cases for this
in the toolchain; if I've missed them, point me at 'em and I'll update
them.
Adding the option to control from rustc CLI
if the resulted ".o" bitcode module files are with
thinLTO info or regular LTO info.
Allows using "-lto-embed-bitcode=optimized" during linkage
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Ziv Dunkelman <ziv.dunkelman@nextsilicon.com>
To apply the optimization the `Virtual Function Elim` module flag has to
be set. To apply this optimization post-link the `LTOPostLink` module
flag has to be set.
Begin fixing all the broken doctests in `compiler/`
Begins to fix#95994.
All of them pass now but 24 of them I've marked with `ignore HELP (<explanation>)` (asking for help) as I'm unsure how to get them to work / if we should leave them as they are.
There are also a few that I marked `ignore` that could maybe be made to work but seem less important.
Each `ignore` has a rough "reason" for ignoring after it parentheses, with
- `(pseudo-rust)` meaning "mostly rust-like but contains foreign syntax"
- `(illustrative)` a somewhat catchall for either a fragment of rust that doesn't stand on its own (like a lone type), or abbreviated rust with ellipses and undeclared types that would get too cluttered if made compile-worthy.
- `(not-rust)` stuff that isn't rust but benefits from the syntax highlighting, like MIR.
- `(internal)` uses `rustc_*` code which would be difficult to make work with the testing setup.
Those reason notes are a bit inconsistently applied and messy though. If that's important I can go through them again and try a more principled approach. When I run `rg '```ignore \(' .` on the repo, there look to be lots of different conventions other people have used for this sort of thing. I could try unifying them all if that would be helpful.
I'm not sure if there was a better existing way to do this but I wrote my own script to help me run all the doctests and wade through the output. If that would be useful to anyone else, I put it here: https://github.com/Elliot-Roberts/rust_doctest_fixing_tool
Generate synthetic object file to ensure all exported and used symbols participate in the linking
Fix#50007 and #47384
This is the synthetic object file approach that I described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95363#issuecomment-1079932354, allowing all exported and used symbols to be linked while still allowing them to be GCed.
Related #93791, #95363
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@carbotaniuman`
Since September, the toolchain has not been generating reliable DWARF
information for static variables when LTO is on. This has affected
projects in the embedded space where the use of LTO is typical. In our
case, it has kept us from bumping past the 2021-09-22 nightly toolchain
lest our debugger break. This has been a pretty dramatic regression for
people using debuggers and static variables. See #90357 for more info
and a repro case.
This commit is a mechanical revert of
d5de680e20 from PR #89041, which caused
the issue. (Note on that PR that the commit's author has requested it be
reverted.)
I have locally verified that this fixes#90357 by restoring the
functionality of both the repro case I posted on that bug, and debugger
behavior on real programs. There do not appear to be test cases for this
in the toolchain; if I've missed them, point me at 'em and I'll update
them.
This was originally introduced in #10916 as a way to remove all landing
pads when performing LTO. However this is no longer necessary today
since rustc properly marks all functions and call-sites as nounwind
where appropriate.
In fact this is incorrect in the presence of `extern "C-unwind"` which
must create a landing pad when compiled with `-C panic=abort` so that
foreign exceptions are caught and properly turned into aborts.
Allow loading LLVM plugins with both legacy and new pass manager
Opening a draft PR to get feedback and start discussion on this feature. There is already a codegen option `passes` which allow giving a list of LLVM pass names, however we currently can't use a LLVM pass plugin (as described here : https://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html), the only available passes are the LLVM built-in ones.
The proposed modification would be to add another codegen option `pass-plugins`, which can be set with a list of paths to shared library files. These libraries are loaded using the LLVM function `PassPlugin::Load`, which calls the expected symbol `lvmGetPassPluginInfo`, and register the pipeline parsing and optimization callbacks.
An example usage with a single plugin and 3 passes would look like this in the `.cargo/config`:
```toml
rustflags = [
"-C", "pass-plugins=/tmp/libLLVMPassPlugin",
"-C", "passes=pass1 pass2 pass3",
]
```
This would give the same functionality as the opt LLVM tool directly integrated in rust build system.
Additionally, we can also not specify the `passes` option, and use a plugin which inserts passes in the optimization pipeline, as one could do using clang.
This doesn't seem to be necessary anymore, although I don't know
at which point or why that changed.
Forcing -O1 makes some tests fail under NewPM, because NewPM also
performs inlining at -O1, so it ends up performing much more
optimization in practice than before.
