WIP: Thread GeneratorKind through to symbol mangling
#104333
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The current symbol mangling (legacy and v0) do not differentiate between closures and async fns / blocks, which is suboptimal when looking at debuginfo or stack traces. This lays the groundwork to eventually add these special kinds of closures to the mangling scheme.
|
r? @lcnr (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
cjgillot
reviewed
Nov 13, 2022
| @@ -265,16 +268,24 @@ impl<'a, 'b> visit::Visitor<'a> for DefCollector<'a, 'b> { | |||
| ExprKind::Closure(_, _, asyncness, ..) => { | |||
| // Async closures desugar to closures inside of closures, so | |||
| // we must create two defs. | |||
| let closure_def = self.create_def(expr.id, DefPathData::ClosureExpr, expr.span); | |||
| let closure_def = | |||
| self.create_def(expr.id, DefPathData::ClosureExpr(None), expr.span); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The closure could still be a regular generator if the body contains a yield.
It should be included here, otherwise we'll have an inconsistency between the DefPath and HIR.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #101562) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
jackh726
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@Swatinem any updates on this? |
|
I would need some mentoring especially around how to make changes to the mangling scheme, as I believe changes might be needed there. From the code perspective, there is not really a blocker, I can do a rebase anytime. |
|
@Swatinem any updates on this? if you need help/mentorship I would recommend creating a thread on zulip. If you have already done so, you can link the thread here for easier tracking. Thanks |
|
Well its been almost a year since creating that thread: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/async.20symbol.20mangling/near/312022530 The main thing I would need help with is understanding which moving pieces need to be taken care of. |
|
A new thread will be better for visibility. |
|
Alright, here you go: In the meantime I will start updating this PR to resolve all the conflicts. |
|
This has diverged quite a bit and rebasing has become difficult. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current symbol mangling (legacy and v0) do not differentiate between closures and async fns / blocks, which is suboptimal when looking at debuginfo or stack traces.
This lays the groundwork to eventually add these special kinds of closures to the mangling scheme.
As it is implemented right now, this has a subtle problem when not yet outputting a different mangling for each
GeneratorKind:DefPathData::ClosureExprnowHash-es differently depending on the innerGeneratorKind, so it can potentially reuse the samedisambiguator.I can potentially work around that, though it would be nicer to just have different mangling for each of those types ;-)