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

Allow for better optimizations of iterators for zero-sized types #25434

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2015

Conversation

dotdash
Copy link
Contributor

@dotdash dotdash commented May 15, 2015

Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.

What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.

Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.

What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Is it undefined behavior in LLVM to use offset to get out of bounds, or just to dereference the value? If it's only actually using the resulting value, could we manufacture a base pointer for all iterators over 0-sized types?

@dotdash
Copy link
Contributor Author

dotdash commented May 15, 2015

Yes, offset uses an inbounds GEP, and for those even just generating a pointer that does not point inside or immediately behind an allocated object results in a poison value. That's why the new intrinsic is required.

Not sure what you mean by the base pointer thing.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

We talked on IRC about this a bit, and my concerns were alleviated, thanks @dotdash!

@bors: r+ eeeb2cc

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2015
Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.

What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8\*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 16, 2015

⌛ Testing commit eeeb2cc with merge d332aea...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants