| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This commit applies a few code size optimizations for the wasm target to
the standard library, namely around panics. We notably know that in most
configurations it's impossible for us to print anything in
wasm32-unknown-unknown so we can skip larger portions of panicking that
are otherwise simply informative. This allows us to get quite a nice
size reduction.
Finally we can also tweak where the allocation happens for the
`Box<Any>` that we panic with. By only allocating once unwinding starts
we can reduce the size of a panicking wasm module from 44k to 350 bytes.
|
|
… to make the name `alloc` available.
|
|
|
|
rustc_driver: get rid of the extra thread
**Do not rollup**
We can alter the stack size afterwards on Unix.
Having a separate thread causes poor debugging experience when interrupting with signals. I have to get the backtrace of the all thread, as the main thread is waiting to join doing nothing else. This patch allows me to just run `bt` to get the desired backtrace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now begins the saga of fixing compilation errors on other platforms...
|
|
Use a range to identify SIGSEGV in stack guards
Previously, the `guard::init()` and `guard::current()` functions were
returning a `usize` address representing the top of the stack guard,
respectively for the main thread and for spawned threads. The `SIGSEGV`
handler on `unix` targets checked if a fault was within one page below that
address, if so reporting it as a stack overflow.
Now `unix` targets report a `Range<usize>` representing the guard memory,
so it can cover arbitrary guard sizes. Non-`unix` targets which always
return `None` for guards now do so with `Option<!>`, so they don't pay any
overhead.
For `linux-gnu` in particular, the previous guard upper-bound was
`stackaddr + guardsize`, as the protected memory was *inside* the stack.
This was a glibc bug, and starting from 2.27 they are moving the guard
*past* the end of the stack. However, there's no simple way for us to know
where the guard page actually lies, so now we declare it as the whole range
of `stackaddr ± guardsize`, and any fault therein will be called a stack
overflow. This fixes #47863.
|
|
Previously, the `guard::init()` and `guard::current()` functions were
returning a `usize` address representing the top of the stack guard,
respectively for the main thread and for spawned threads. The `SIGSEGV`
handler on `unix` targets checked if a fault was within one page below
that address, if so reporting it as a stack overflow.
Now `unix` targets report a `Range<usize>` representing the guard
memory, so it can cover arbitrary guard sizes. Non-`unix` targets which
always return `None` for guards now do so with `Option<!>`, so they
don't pay any overhead.
For `linux-gnu` in particular, the previous guard upper-bound was
`stackaddr + guardsize`, as the protected memory was *inside* the stack.
This was a glibc bug, and starting from 2.27 they are moving the guard
*past* the end of the stack. However, there's no simple way for us to
know where the guard page actually lies, so now we declare it as the
whole range of `stackaddr ± guardsize`, and any fault therein will be
called a stack overflow. This fixes #47863.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use memchr to speed up [u8]::contains 3x
None
|
|
Capture `Command` environment at spawn
Fixes #28975
This tracks a set of changes to the environment and then replays them at spawn time.
|
|
|
|
Closes #46670.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provides the following conversion implementations:
* `From<`{`CString`,`&CStr`}`>` for {`Arc`,`Rc`}`<CStr>`
* `From<`{`OsString`,`&OsStr`}`>` for {`Arc`,`Rc`}`<OsStr>`
* `From<`{`PathBuf`,`&Path`}`>` for {`Arc`,`Rc`}`<Path>`
|
|
This commit adds a new target to the compiler: wasm32-unknown-unknown. This
target is a reimagining of what it looks like to generate WebAssembly code from
Rust. Instead of using Emscripten which can bring with it a weighty runtime this
instead is a target which uses only the LLVM backend for WebAssembly and a
"custom linker" for now which will hopefully one day be direct calls to lld.
Notable features of this target include:
* There is zero runtime footprint. The target assumes nothing exists other than
the wasm32 instruction set.
* There is zero toolchain footprint beyond adding the target. No custom linker
is needed, rustc contains everything.
* Very small wasm modules can be generated directly from Rust code using this
target.
* Most of the standard library is stubbed out to return an error, but anything
related to allocation works (aka `HashMap`, `Vec`, etc).
* Naturally, any `#[no_std]` crate should be 100% compatible with this new
target.
This target is currently somewhat janky due to how linking works. The "linking"
is currently unconditional whole program LTO (aka LLVM is being used as a
linker). Naturally that means compiling programs is pretty slow! Eventually
though this target should have a linker.
This target is also intended to be quite experimental. I'm hoping that this can
act as a catalyst for further experimentation in Rust with WebAssembly. Breaking
changes are very likely to land to this target, so it's not recommended to rely
on it in any critical capacity yet. We'll let you know when it's "production
ready".
---
Currently testing-wise this target is looking pretty good but isn't complete.
I've got almost the entire `run-pass` test suite working with this target (lots
of tests ignored, but many passing as well). The `core` test suite is still
getting LLVM bugs fixed to get that working and will take some time. Relatively
simple programs all seem to work though!
---
It's worth nothing that you may not immediately see the "smallest possible wasm
module" for the input you feed to rustc. For various reasons it's very difficult
to get rid of the final "bloat" in vanilla rustc (again, a real linker should
fix all this). For now what you'll have to do is:
cargo install --git https://github.com/alexcrichton/wasm-gc
wasm-gc foo.wasm bar.wasm
And then `bar.wasm` should be the smallest we can get it!
---
In any case for now I'd love feedback on this, particularly on the various
integration points if you've got better ideas of how to approach them!
|
