Cranelift: Incorrect abi for i128, i128 return value on x86_64 sysv #9250
Comments
bjorn3
added
bug
|
Found another issue: The x86_64 and riscv64 backends add an implicit return pointer after all other arguments rather than as first argument. Edit: Fixed in #9267 |
Actually, LLVM passes the return value on the stack if it doesn't fit in registers. It doesn't use a return area pointer. Edit: Never mind. I was wrong about this. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 3, 2024
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 10, 2024
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2024
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 17, 2024
…kic,jieyouxu
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 19, 2024
…kic,jieyouxu
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
|
As of rust-lang/rust#131211 rustc should no longer emit this return type. If this is indeed the case, I propose to deny any return type that doesn't fit in the abi designated return value registers for at least the system_v and windows_fastcall call convs. And ideally also for every other call conv to be able to get rid of the implicit sret argument introduction in the abi calculation code which complicates this code by a fair bit. |
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this issue
Oct 20, 2024
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this issue
Oct 22, 2024
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525
cc bytecodealliance/wasmtime#9250
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Expected Results
All return values are returned using a single return pointer.
Actual Results
Return values are put into registers where possible and on the stack for the rest.
Versions and Environment
Cranelift version or commit: 0.111
Operating system: Linux
Architecture: x86_64
Extra Info
This is one of the causes for rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1525. The same issue may exist on aarch64 and other archs too, but haven't checked yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: