Skip to content

Fix MaybeUninit codegen using GVN#147827

Merged
bors merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
saethlin:maybeuninit-codegen2
Nov 23, 2025
Merged

Fix MaybeUninit codegen using GVN#147827
bors merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
saethlin:maybeuninit-codegen2

Conversation

@saethlin

@saethlin saethlin commented Oct 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is an alternative to #142837, based on #146355 (comment).

The general approach I took here is to aggressively propagate anything that is entirely uninitialized. GVN generally takes the approach of only synthesizing small types, but we need to generate large consts to fix the codegen issue.

I also added a special case to MIR dumps for this where now an entirely uninit const is printed as const <uninit>, because otherwise we end up with extremely verbose dumps of the new consts.

After GVN though, we still end up with a lot of MIR that looks like this:

StorageLive(_1);
_1 = const <uninit>;
_2 = &raw mut _1;

Which will break tests/codegen-llvm/maybeuninit-rvo.rs with the naive lowering. I think the ideal fix here is to somehow omit these _1 = const <uninit> assignments that come directly after a StorageLive, but I'm not sure how to do that. For now at least, ignoring such assignments (even if they don't come right after a StorageLive) in codegen seems to work.

Note that since GVN is based on synthesizing a ConstValue which has a defined layout, this scenario still gets deoptimized by LLVM.

#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
use std::mem::MaybeUninit;

#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
pub fn oof() -> [[MaybeUninit<u8>; 8]; 8] {
    #[rustc_no_mir_inline]
    pub fn inner<T: Copy>() -> [[MaybeUninit<T>; 8]; 8] {
        [[MaybeUninit::uninit(); 8]; 8]
    }

    inner()
}

This case can be handled correctly if enough inlining has happened, or it could be handled by post-mono GVN. Synthesizing UnevaluatedConst or some other special kind of const seems dubious.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 17, 2025
@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2025
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 17, 2025
@rust-bors

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: e6fd12c (e6fd12c9ca883127b096afd871b40a5714f3d107, parent: f46475914de626785090a05ae037578aaa119fc8)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e6fd12c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-7.4% [-7.4%, -7.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.3% [-7.4%, 0.7%] 2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.9% [0.9%, 0.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.0% [1.8%, 4.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.7% [-3.7%, -3.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.9% [0.9%, 0.9%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary -3.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.6% [-3.6%, -3.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.6% [-3.6%, -3.6%] 1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 475.372s -> 474.527s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 390.39 MiB -> 390.41 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Oct 18, 2025
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the maybeuninit-codegen2 branch from 6d353c3 to 1a410f7 Compare October 19, 2025 21:47
@saethlin saethlin marked this pull request as ready for review October 19, 2025 22:12
@rustbot

rustbot commented Oct 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Oct 19, 2025
@rustbot

rustbot commented Oct 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

r? scottmcm

@rustbot rustbot assigned scottmcm and unassigned petrochenkov Oct 19, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the maybeuninit-codegen2 branch from 1a410f7 to 177e9fc Compare October 19, 2025 23:18
@tmiasko

tmiasko commented Oct 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I think the ideal fix here is to somehow omit these _1 = const assignments that come directly after a StorageLive, but I'm not sure how to do that.

If you go in that direction, please make sure #137936 is fixed first. Otherwise such a transformation would expose the issue in Rust, as opposed to being merely limited to a custom MIR (probably?).

@scottmcm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Note that since GVN is based on synthesizing a ConstValue which has a defined layout, this scenario still gets deoptimized by LLVM.

I think once we move transmute to being union semantics we'll have more options here, can we can rewrite those repeats to transmute(()) even in generic MIR (hopefully).

if let mir::Operand::Constant(const_op) = operand {
let val = self.eval_mir_constant(&const_op);
if val.all_bytes_uninit(self.cx.tcx()) {
return;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

pondering: I wonder if there's any places that are intentionally writing uninit somewhere to tell LLVM that the value doesn't matter. It might be interesting to (outside of debug) write undef to the place for the situations where LLVM doesn't do the bad behaviour of copying a constant for that (such as *p = undef; for *p being Scalar or ScalarPair).

But I don't think that would need to be in this PR.

}

// Printing [MaybeUninit<u8>::uninit(); N] or any other aggregate where all fields are uninit
// becomes very verbose. This special case makes the dump terse and clear.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

Comment thread tests/codegen-llvm/uninit-consts.rs Outdated
pub const fn fully_uninit() -> MaybeUninit<[u8; 10]> {
const M: MaybeUninit<[u8; 10]> = MaybeUninit::uninit();
// CHECK: call void @llvm.memcpy.{{.+}}(ptr align 1 %_0, ptr align 1 {{.*}}[[FULLY_UNINIT]]{{.*}}, i{{(32|64)}} 10, i1 false)
// CHECK: ret void

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fix: this updated test would still pass without the fix from the PR (since there was already a ret void in it), so you need to change the test somehow.

Perhaps something like

Suggested change
// CHECK: ret void
// returning uninit doesn't need to do anything to the return place at all
// CHECK: start:
// CHECK-NEXT: ret void

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

@bors

bors commented Nov 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Testing commit 2d836b9 with merge 1a6ec91...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors

bors commented Nov 23, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 23, 2025
bend-n added a commit to bend-n/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2025
…cottmcm

Fix MaybeUninit codegen using GVN

This is an alternative to rust-lang#142837, based on rust-lang#146355 (comment).

The general approach I took here is to aggressively propagate anything that is entirely uninitialized. GVN generally takes the approach of only synthesizing small types, but we need to generate large consts to fix the codegen issue.

I also added a special case to MIR dumps for this where now an entirely uninit const is printed as `const <uninit>`, because otherwise we end up with extremely verbose dumps of the new consts.

After GVN though, we still end up with a lot of MIR that looks like this:
```
StorageLive(_1);
_1 = const <uninit>;
_2 = &raw mut _1;
```
Which will break tests/codegen-llvm/maybeuninit-rvo.rs with the naive lowering. I think the ideal fix here is to somehow omit these `_1 = const <uninit>` assignments that come directly after a StorageLive, but I'm not sure how to do that. For now at least, ignoring such assignments (even if they don't come right after a StorageLive) in codegen seems to work.

Note that since GVN is based on synthesizing a `ConstValue`  which has a defined layout, this scenario still gets deoptimized by LLVM.
```rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
use std::mem::MaybeUninit;

#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
pub fn oof() -> [[MaybeUninit<u8>; 8]; 8] {
    #[rustc_no_mir_inline]
    pub fn inner<T: Copy>() -> [[MaybeUninit<T>; 8]; 8] {
        [[MaybeUninit::uninit(); 8]; 8]
    }

    inner()
}
```
This case can be handled correctly if enough inlining has happened, or it could be handled by post-mono GVN. Synthesizing `UnevaluatedConst` or some other special kind of const seems dubious.
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the maybeuninit-codegen2 branch from 2d836b9 to 1a4852c Compare November 23, 2025 13:23
@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bors r=scottmcm

@bors

bors commented Nov 23, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

📌 Commit 1a4852c has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 23, 2025
@bors

bors commented Nov 23, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Testing commit 1a4852c with merge e9acbd9...

@saethlin saethlin linked an issue Nov 23, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@bors

bors commented Nov 23, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing e9acbd9 to main...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 23, 2025
@bors bors merged commit e9acbd9 into rust-lang:main Nov 23, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.93.0 milestone Nov 23, 2025
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 122cbd0 (parent) -> e9acbd9 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 8 test diffs

Stage 1

  • [mir-opt] tests/mir-opt/const_prop/maybe_uninit.rs: [missing] -> pass (J2)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/maybeuninit-array.rs: [missing] -> pass (J3)

Stage 2

  • [mir-opt] tests/mir-opt/const_prop/maybe_uninit.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/maybeuninit-array.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Additionally, 4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard e9acbd99d384280874129fb7fa0da9faeae0d051 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. dist-x86_64-apple: 8070.0s -> 6581.0s (-18.5%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3075.7s -> 3488.2s (+13.4%)
  3. pr-check-1: 1664.4s -> 1887.2s (+13.4%)
  4. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2633.1s -> 2965.1s (+12.6%)
  5. dist-aarch64-apple: 7581.8s -> 6718.1s (-11.4%)
  6. dist-apple-various: 3564.0s -> 3967.1s (+11.3%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 2438.3s -> 2712.4s (+11.2%)
  8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2: 5668.1s -> 6297.2s (+11.1%)
  9. i686-gnu-1: 7435.8s -> 8187.7s (+10.1%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-1: 3132.9s -> 3442.2s (+9.9%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e9acbd9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.1% [0.1%, 0.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.5%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-7.3% [-7.3%, -7.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.6% [-7.3%, 0.1%] 2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary 2.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.0% [1.5%, 6.5%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.6% [-2.5%, -0.7%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary -4.1%, secondary -1.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.9% [1.9%, 7.9%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-4.1% [-4.1%, -4.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.1% [-6.6%, -1.7%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -4.1% [-4.1%, -4.1%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1

Bootstrap: 471.242s -> 472.15s (0.19%)
Artifact size: 386.25 MiB -> 388.25 MiB (0.52%)

@Kobzol

Kobzol commented Nov 25, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Tiny regressions on secondary benchmarks, but a large (and real) win on the cranelift-codegen opt benchmark. This should ideally produce better codegen.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Nov 25, 2025
@saethlin saethlin deleted the maybeuninit-codegen2 branch November 25, 2025 22:12
makai410 pushed a commit to makai410/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 10, 2025
…ttmcm

Fix MaybeUninit codegen using GVN

This is an alternative to rust-lang#142837, based on rust-lang#146355 (comment).

The general approach I took here is to aggressively propagate anything that is entirely uninitialized. GVN generally takes the approach of only synthesizing small types, but we need to generate large consts to fix the codegen issue.

I also added a special case to MIR dumps for this where now an entirely uninit const is printed as `const <uninit>`, because otherwise we end up with extremely verbose dumps of the new consts.

After GVN though, we still end up with a lot of MIR that looks like this:
```
StorageLive(_1);
_1 = const <uninit>;
_2 = &raw mut _1;
```
Which will break tests/codegen-llvm/maybeuninit-rvo.rs with the naive lowering. I think the ideal fix here is to somehow omit these `_1 = const <uninit>` assignments that come directly after a StorageLive, but I'm not sure how to do that. For now at least, ignoring such assignments (even if they don't come right after a StorageLive) in codegen seems to work.

Note that since GVN is based on synthesizing a `ConstValue`  which has a defined layout, this scenario still gets deoptimized by LLVM.
```rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
use std::mem::MaybeUninit;

#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
pub fn oof() -> [[MaybeUninit<u8>; 8]; 8] {
    #[rustc_no_mir_inline]
    pub fn inner<T: Copy>() -> [[MaybeUninit<T>; 8]; 8] {
        [[MaybeUninit::uninit(); 8]; 8]
    }

    inner()
}
```
This case can be handled correctly if enough inlining has happened, or it could be handled by post-mono GVN. Synthesizing `UnevaluatedConst` or some other special kind of const seems dubious.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Creating a nested MaybeUninit array unnecessarily calls memset

9 participants