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

Move Windows keyless TLS dtor into TLS callback module #94820

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member

This may help ensure that the thread local doesn't end up in a separate module to the code that accesses it.

This may help ensure that the thread local doesn't end up in a separate module to the code that accesses it.
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @m-ou-se

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 10, 2022
@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2022 18:10
@JohnCSimon JohnCSimon added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 11, 2022
@JohnCSimon JohnCSimon added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 8, 2022
@apiraino apiraino added the T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label May 23, 2022
@JohnCSimon JohnCSimon added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 3, 2022
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

This may help ensure that the thread local doesn't end up in a separate module to the code that accesses it.

I assume module here means e.g., CGU or similar? If this is important to ensure, it seems like we ought to have at least a comment on the code, and ideally some kind of test -- otherwise it seems easy for this PR to get lost in a refactoring.

@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member Author

ChrisDenton commented Jul 31, 2022

Module means "dll" or "exe" here. IIRC I was seeing issues when running stage 1 tests where sometimes TLS access was being inlined across normal boundaries. Though this didn't appear to affect stage 2 builds as far as I could tell. I guess this is ultimately a compiler bug because it shouldn't be doing that ever. The thread_local! macro works around the problem by making get() be #[inline(never)]. That might work here too.

Though having just rerun ui tests now I'm not seeing the failure. Maybe things have changed.

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I think inline(never) makes me less worried about accidentally reverting it, at least -- it seems like the better change here. I agree that the situation you're describing shouldn't happen though...

@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member Author

Closing in favour of #100007

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants