Clamp Function for f32 and f64
I thought the clamp function could use a little improvement for readability purposes. The function now returns early in order to skip the extra bound checks.
If there was a reason for binding `self` to `x` or if this code is incorrect, please correct me :)
Simple Clamp Function
I thought this was more robust and easier to read. I also allowed this function to return early in order to skip the extra bound check (I'm sure the difference is negligible). I'm not sure if there was a reason for binding `self` to `x`; if so, please correct me.
Simple Clamp Function for f64
I thought this was more robust and easier to read. I also allowed this function to return early in order to skip the extra bound check (I'm sure the difference is negligible). I'm not sure if there was a reason for binding `self` to `x`; if so, please correct me.
Floating point clamp test
f32 clamp using mut self
f64 clamp using mut self
Update library/core/src/num/f32.rs
Update f64.rs
Update x86_64-floating-point-clamp.rs
Update src/test/assembly/x86_64-floating-point-clamp.rs
Update x86_64-floating-point-clamp.rs
Co-Authored-By: scottmcm <scottmcm@users.noreply.github.com>
Remove branch target prologues from `#[naked] fn`
This patch hacks around rust-lang/rust#98768 for now via injecting appropriate attributes into the LLVMIR we emit for naked functions. I intend to pursue this upstream so that these attributes can be removed in general, but it's slow going wading through C++ for me.
Add a special case for align_offset /w stride != 1
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
DWARF version 5 brings a number of improvements over version 4. Quoting from
the announcement [1]:
> Version 5 incorporates improvements in many areas: better data compression,
> separation of debugging data from executable files, improved description of
> macros and source files, faster searching for symbols, improved debugging
> optimized code, as well as numerous improvements in functionality and
> performance.
On platforms where DWARF version 5 is supported (Linux, primarily), this commit
adds support for it behind a new `-Z dwarf-version=5` flag.
[1]: https://dwarfstd.org/Public_Review.php
The output of IR formatting changed slightly in upstream rev
a0bc67e555f404d0e7ddb2e78cb891d96eaf913d
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D123096). I'm not actually sure what any of
that means, as I don't even know what hexagon is in this context, but
this change allows the test to pass on both old and new LLVMs.
r? @nikic
This is a >= condition, so we need a maximum size of 7 to not
create a stack protector in basic mode.
The reason this still worked is that the alloca type was converted
into an integer (rather than an array). The way these heuristics
are implemented in LLVM is rather questionable and not resilient
to optimization.
Fix codegen bug in "ptx-kernel" abi related to arg passing
I found a codegen bug in the nvptx abi related to that args are passed as ptrs ([see comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38788#issuecomment-1048999928)), this is not as specified in the [ptx-interoperability doc](https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/ptx-writers-guide-to-interoperability/) or how C/C++ does it. It will also almost always fail in practice since device/host uses different memory spaces for most hardware.
This PR fixes the bug and add tests for passing structs to ptx kernels.
I observed that all nvptx assembly tests had been marked as [ignore a long time ago](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59752#issuecomment-501713428). I'm not sure if the new one should be marked as ignore, it passed on my computer but it might fail if ptx-linker is missing on the server? I guess this is outside scope for this PR and should be looked at in a different issue/PR.
I only fixed the nvptx64-nvidia-cuda target and not the potential code paths for the non-existing 32bit target. Even though 32bit nvptx is not a supported target there are still some code under the hood supporting codegen for 32 bit ptx. I was advised to create an MCP to find out if this code should be removed or updated.
Perhaps ``@RDambrosio016`` would have interest in taking a quick look at this.
This change is somewhat extensive, since it affects MIR -- since this is called to determine Copy vs Move -- so any test that's `no_core` needs to actually have the normal `impl`s it uses.
Add codegen option for branch protection and pointer authentication on AArch64
The branch-protection codegen option enables the use of hint-space pointer
authentication code for AArch64 targets.
They are also removed from the prelude as per the decision in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87228.
stdarch and compiler-builtins are updated to work with the new, stable
asm! and global_asm! macros.
- Changed the separator from '+' to ','.
- Moved the branch protection options from -C to -Z.
- Additional test for incorrect branch-protection option.
- Remove LLVM < 12 code.
- Style fixes.
Co-authored-by: James McGregor <james.mcgregor2@arm.com>
LLVM has built-in heuristics for adding stack canaries to functions. These
heuristics can be selected with LLVM function attributes. This patch adds a
rustc option `-Z stack-protector={none,basic,strong,all}` which controls the use
of these attributes. This gives rustc the same stack smash protection support as
clang offers through options `-fno-stack-protector`, `-fstack-protector`,
`-fstack-protector-strong`, and `-fstack-protector-all`. The protection this can
offer is demonstrated in test/ui/abi/stack-protector.rs. This fills a gap in the
current list of rustc exploit
mitigations (https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/exploit-mitigations.html),
originally discussed in #15179.
Stack smash protection adds runtime overhead and is therefore still off by
default, but now users have the option to trade performance for security as they
see fit. An example use case is adding Rust code in an existing C/C++ code base
compiled with stack smash protection. Without the ability to add stack smash
protection to the Rust code, the code base artifacts could be exploitable in
ways not possible if the code base remained pure C/C++.
Stack smash protection support is present in LLVM for almost all the current
tier 1/tier 2 targets: see
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs. The one
exception is nvptx64-nvidia-cuda. This patch follows clang's example, and adds a
warning message printed if stack smash protection is used with this target (see
test/ui/stack-protector/warn-stack-protector-unsupported.rs). Support for tier 3
targets has not been checked.
Since the heuristics are applied at the LLVM level, the heuristics are expected
to add stack smash protection to a fraction of functions comparable to C/C++.
Some experiments demonstrating how Rust code is affected by the different
heuristics can be found in
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-heuristics-effect.rs. There is
potential for better heuristics using Rust-specific safety information. For
example it might be reasonable to skip stack smash protection in functions which
transitively only use safe Rust code, or which uses only a subset of functions
the user declares safe (such as anything under `std.*`). Such alternative
heuristics could be added at a later point.
LLVM also offers a "safestack" sanitizer as an alternative way to guard against
stack smashing (see #26612). This could possibly also be included as a
stack-protection heuristic. An alternative is to add it as a sanitizer (#39699).
This is what clang does: safestack is exposed with option
`-fsanitize=safe-stack`.
The options are only supported by the LLVM backend, but as with other codegen
options it is visible in the main codegen option help menu. The heuristic names
"basic", "strong", and "all" are hopefully sufficiently generic to be usable in
other backends as well.
Reviewed-by: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
Extra commits during review:
- [address-review] make the stack-protector option unstable
- [address-review] reduce detail level of stack-protector option help text
- [address-review] correct grammar in comment
- [address-review] use compiler flag to avoid merging functions in test
- [address-review] specify min LLVM version in fortanix stack-protector test
Only for Fortanix test, since this target specifically requests the
`--x86-experimental-lvi-inline-asm-hardening` flag.
- [address-review] specify required LLVM components in stack-protector tests
- move stack protector option enum closer to other similar option enums
- rustc_interface/tests: sort debug option list in tracking hash test
- add an explicit `none` stack-protector option
Revert "set LLVM requirements for all stack protector support test revisions"
This reverts commit a49b74f92a4e7d701d6f6cf63d207a8aff2e0f68.
[aarch64] add target feature outline-atomics
Enable outline-atomics by default as enabled in clang by the following commit
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc5e7e649d537067dec7111f3de1430d0fc8a4d11
Performance improves by several orders of magnitude when using the LSE instructions
instead of the ARMv8.0 compatible load/store exclusive instructions.
Tested on Graviton2 aarch64-linux with
x.py build && x.py install && x.py test
Enable outline-atomics by default as enabled in clang by the following commit
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc5e7e649d537067dec7111f3de1430d0fc8a4d11
Performance improves by several orders of magnitude when using the LSE instructions
instead of the ARMv8.0 compatible load/store exclusive instructions.
Tested on Graviton2 aarch64-linux with
x.py build && x.py install && x.py test
This fixes compiling things like the `snap` crate after
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105462. I added a test that verifies the
additional attribute gets specified, and confirmed that I can build
cargo with both LLVM 13 and 14 with this change applied.
