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

builtin trait to abstract over function pointers #99531

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr lcnr commented Jul 20, 2022

implements and uses #92964 (comment)

the tragedy of

if candidates.len() == 1 {
return self.filter_reservation_impls(candidates.pop().unwrap(), stack.obligation);
}

until we figure out 68dea3aaadcc62837ffe7aa6a923fc9bedb6c786 i don't think we can land this. i generally have some ideas here but all of them as somewhat annoying. i think that generally the way trait errors are reported can and should be reworked. not sure what's the best short-term solution here

r? @rust-lang/types cc @RalfJung (from #92964)

@lcnr lcnr added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. labels Jul 20, 2022
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 20, 2022

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

  • Stabilizing library features
  • Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
  • Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
  • Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
  • Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 20, 2022

let source_info = SourceInfo::outermost(span);
let rvalue = Rvalue::Cast(
CastKind::PointerExposeAddress,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are implementing expose_addr, not addr.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that means? 😅 what's the correct mir statement here, simply CastKind::Misc?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is no MIR statement for this, https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.addr uses transmute.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should just cast to *const () or some other pointer to avoid any kind of provenance worries.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Oh lol it wants to use FnPtr for things that have nothing to do with function pointers? :(

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jul 20, 2022

Oh lol it wants to use FnPtr for things that have nothing to do with function pointers? :(

You see this a lot with certain other traits, like AFAIK you can't (easily?) get errors saying IntoIterator isn't implemented, because it finds the blanket impl of IntoIterator for any Iterator and decides that is where it draws the line. (quick example on playground - you may not have noticed it before because of how connected IntoIterator and Iterator are but it's technically wrong)


I think what needs to happen is we need to distinguish between these two:

  • "covered" blanket impl
    impl<T> Foo for X<T> where T: Bar {}
    • this is fine to continue saying that Bar isn't implemented, since this impl "peels off" an application of the X constructor
    • in a sense, T: Bar is "more specific" than X<T>: Foo
  • "uncovered" blanket impl
    impl<T> Foo for T where T: Bar {}
    • this is where I think we should stop diagnosing it as T: Bar and switch to T: Foo
    • we could still potentially mention this impl with its Bar constraint in the same way we already list other examples of inapplicable impls (as a help message), though we should be careful to retain the ability to always hide some traits

@lcnr Does this sound reasonable? Maybe an issue or MCP should be opened about this.

// impl for a fundamental type. As all fundamental types are `Sized`,
// that's not an issue for now. We should go for a more disciplined
// solution in the future.
if matches!(in_crate, InCrate::Remote)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should move this to trait_ref_is_knowable instead

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 21, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #99567) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Jul 25, 2022

@lcnr Does this sound reasonable? Maybe an issue or MCP should be opened about this.

yeah, i looked into the diagnostics impact of this in #99719 and it looks promising.

fixed diagnostics now, might rework the approach before merging though 😁 (i also have to add tests)

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 25, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2022

⌛ Trying commit 9d0a8e5 with merge 2e62312963f4b040a4e7aaec816772554c4baa1d...

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2e62312963f4b040a4e7aaec816772554c4baa1d (2e62312963f4b040a4e7aaec816772554c4baa1d)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued 2e62312963f4b040a4e7aaec816772554c4baa1d with parent 2fdbf07, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (2e62312963f4b040a4e7aaec816772554c4baa1d): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: mixed results
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
1.9% 13.5% 56
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
0.9% 2.1% 13
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.5% -3.8% 10
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-2.4% -4.0% 25
All 😿🎉 (primary) 1.4% 13.5% 66

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: mixed results
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
1.3% 2.1% 2
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.1% 3.6% 3
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.8% -2.6% 5
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-2.3% -3.3% 13
All 😿🎉 (primary) -0.9% -2.6% 7

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: mixed results
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
5.3% 11.7% 12
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
2.4% 2.8% 7
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-2.8% -3.8% 3
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-3.3% -4.3% 21
All 😿🎉 (primary) 3.7% 11.7% 15

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jul 25, 2022
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Jul 25, 2022

so, the major issue is that the FnPtr impls are added to https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/trait_def/struct.TraitImpls.html#structfield.blanket_impls instead of a new entry in non_blanket_impls. I think it's easiest to change FunctionSimplifiedType to not include the input count and add a hack which adds all impls with a Self: FnPtr bound to that map instead of the general one 🤔

i have to admit that i don't like that too much 😁

@lopopolo
Copy link
Contributor

lopopolo commented Aug 31, 2022

Looking forward to the MCP here. I am following along on this ticket because I'm interested in seeing the c_unwind feature be stabilized. Built in trait impls on the new function types are a blocker for that. Is there a way to have a smaller change land that would unblock stabilizing the c_unwind feature?

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Adding only the c_unwind instances without also adding a dozen other ABIs like the last PR did, might work.

@lopopolo
Copy link
Contributor

lopopolo commented Sep 1, 2022

Adding only the c_unwind instances without also adding a dozen other ABIs like the last PR did, might work.

@RalfJung I've put up a PR for this at #101263.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2022
…pls, r=thomcc

Add default trait implementations for "c-unwind" ABI function pointers

Following up on rust-lang#92964, only add default trait implementations for the `c-unwind` family of function pointers. The previous attempt in rust-lang#92964 added trait implementations for many more ABIs and ran into concerns regarding the increase in size of the libcore rlib.

An attempt to abstract away function pointer types behind a unified trait to reduce the duplication of trait impls is being discussed in rust-lang#99531 but this change looks to be blocked on a lang MCP.

Following `@RalfJung's` suggestion in rust-lang#99531 (comment), this commit is another cut at rust-lang#92964 but it _only_ adds the impls for `extern "C-unwind" fn` and `unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn`.

I am interested in landing this patch to unblock the stabilization of the `c_unwind` feature.

RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2945
Tracking Issue: rust-lang#74990
@jackh726 jackh726 added T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 30, 2022
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

I think @rust-lang/lang should just chime in here. Likely we just need an FCP to land this under a feature. I think before landing it might be "important" enough to write a small RFC.

@jackh726 jackh726 added S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). and removed S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels Nov 30, 2022
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

I'd definitely like to see this land, that would also unblock (or at least strongly simplify) a bunch of important work on the const-eval and pattern-match side (#105750 would be the start).

@lcnr is there an implementation plan that just needs someone to "do it", or are there still open conceptual questions? @eddyb mentioned a super elaborate plan but if nobody has the time to work on that, I'd rather not wait for that to materialize...

@jackh726 if the trait remains private/unstable, I am not sure that we need an RFC. But we'd definitely need T-lang FCP for the magic trait, yeah.

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

Yeah, I think I meant before stabilization we might want an RFC. For unstable, we can land with just FCP.

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Dec 22, 2022

@lcnr is there an implementation plan that just needs someone to "do it", or are there still open conceptual questions? @eddyb mentioned a super elaborate plan but if nobody has the time to work on that, I'd rather not wait for that to materialize...

for me the only issue was perf (and lang approval ofc 😁). have an idea how to fix that which is:

  • for https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/trait_def/struct.TraitImpls.html add a third field: fn_ptr_impls: Vec<DefId> which includes all impls which have a generic param T as the self type with a T: FnPtr bound
  • in the methods accessing TraitImpls, also iterate over these impls if they could apply. Only iterate over them if the self_ty is either an function pointer, a generic param with a T: FnPtr bound in the param_env, or something without a simplified_type (e.g. an inference var)

this approach has a similar core idea to what i've described in https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/247081-t-compiler.2Fperformance/topic/Compile-time.20case-study.3A.20AWS.20crates/near/315550450

I myself don't have the capacity to implement myself but could (loosely) mentor.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr and I discussed this at some point. I'm in favor of having this special trait. I prefer to fix the perf solution by having the compiler be aware of T: FnPtr where-clauses that are in scope and which are required, because this solution would scale to supporting other similar traits like Tuple. I think this is what @lcnr was describing in their most recent comment, as well.

thomcc pushed a commit to tcdi/postgrestd that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2023
Following up on #92964, only add default trait implementations for the
`c-unwind` family of function pointers. The previous attempt in #92964
added trait implementations for many more ABIs and ran into concerns
regarding the increase in size of the libcore rlib.

An attempt to abstract away function pointer types behind a unified
trait to reduce the duplication of trait impls is being discussed in #99531
but this change looks to be blocked on a lang MCP.

Following @RalfJung's suggestion in
rust-lang/rust#99531 (comment),
this commit is another cut at #92964 but it _only_ adds the impls for
`extern "C-unwind" fn` and `unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn`.

I am interested in landing this patch to unblock the stabilization of
the `c_unwind` feature.

RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2945
Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#74990
thomcc pushed a commit to tcdi/postgrestd that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2023
…omcc

Add default trait implementations for "c-unwind" ABI function pointers

Following up on #92964, only add default trait implementations for the `c-unwind` family of function pointers. The previous attempt in #92964 added trait implementations for many more ABIs and ran into concerns regarding the increase in size of the libcore rlib.

An attempt to abstract away function pointer types behind a unified trait to reduce the duplication of trait impls is being discussed in #99531 but this change looks to be blocked on a lang MCP.

Following `@RalfJung's` suggestion in rust-lang/rust#99531 (comment), this commit is another cut at #92964 but it _only_ adds the impls for `extern "C-unwind" fn` and `unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn`.

I am interested in landing this patch to unblock the stabilization of the `c_unwind` feature.

RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2945
Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#74990
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #108080

@jackh726 jackh726 closed this Feb 18, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2023
Add a builtin `FnPtr` trait that is implemented for all function pointers

r? `@ghost`

Rebased version of rust-lang#99531 (plus adjustments mentioned in the PR).

If perf is happy with this version, I would like to land it, even if the diagnostics fix in 9df8e1befb5031a5bf9d8dfe25170620642d3c59 only works for `FnPtr` specifically, and does not generally improve blanket impls.
thomcc pushed a commit to tcdi/postgrestd that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2023
Add a builtin `FnPtr` trait that is implemented for all function pointers

r? `@ghost`

Rebased version of rust-lang/rust#99531 (plus adjustments mentioned in the PR).

If perf is happy with this version, I would like to land it, even if the diagnostics fix in 9df8e1befb5031a5bf9d8dfe25170620642d3c59 only works for `FnPtr` specifically, and does not generally improve blanket impls.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.