-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Measure binary size impact of implicit caller location #70579
Comments
@eddyb could you provide some pointers on how to put static allocations in their own sections? I assume it's a change to |
@anp Yeah, look at how |
Have we looked at a diff of a stage1 (or stage2) rustc build? rustc has a lot of expect/unwrap etc code so I suspect if there's essentially no delta then I'm not too worried. I haven't noticed nightlies getting much bigger so I suspect we in practice aren't growing by too much. |
@Mark-Simulacrum this reminds me that we're not measuring size changes on perf.rust-lang.org. |
Filed: rust-lang/rustc-perf#643 |
OK, here's a gist documenting an instrumentation-based approach. TLDR: rustc with The fact that intuitively we know this could cause a net binary bloat makes me think that we want to polish up the custom sections patch in my gist. It's useful instrumentation for the future. I'm not sure whether this is sufficient motivation to block stabilization on #70580. Thoughts? |
The best way of calculating the impact of the feature itself would be doing two stage2 builds, one with track_caller turned on and one with it off. From your analysis now we know it's no more than 810 kB for rustc. Percentage of the overall binary size is probably useful, but it's hard to say without seeing more binaries. For a large enough system I'd guess it'd be approximately the same overall, but for smaller binaries it could take up a higher percentage. |
Stabilize `#[track_caller]`. # Stabilization Report RFC: [2091] Tracking issue: rust-lang#47809 ## Summary From the [rustc-dev-guide chapter][dev-guide]: > Take this example program: ```rust fn main() { let foo: Option<()> = None; foo.unwrap(); // this should produce a useful panic message! } ``` > Prior to Rust 1.42, panics like this `unwrap()` printed a location in libcore: ``` $ rustc +1.41.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value',...core\macros\mod.rs:15:40 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace. ``` > As of 1.42, we get a much more helpful message: ``` $ rustc +1.42.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', example.rs:3:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ``` > These error messages are achieved through a combination of changes to `panic!` internals to make use of `core::panic::Location::caller` and a number of `#[track_caller]` annotations in the standard library which propagate caller information. The attribute adds an implicit caller location argument to the ABI of annotated functions, but does not affect the type or MIR of the function. We implement the feature entirely in codegen and in the const evaluator. ## Bottom Line This PR stabilizes the use of `#[track_caller]` everywhere, including traits and extern blocks. It also stabilizes `core::panic::Location::caller`, although the use of that function in a const context remains gated by `#![feature(const_caller_location)]`. The implementation for the feature already changed the output of panic messages for a number of std functions, as described in the [1.42 release announcement]. The attribute's use in `Index` and `IndexMut` traits is visible to users since 1.44. ## Tests All of the tests for this feature live under [src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller][tests] in the repo. Noteworthy cases: * [use of attr in std] * validates user-facing benefit of the feature * [trait attribute inheritance] * covers subtle behavior designed during implementation and not RFC'd * [const/codegen equivalence] * this was the result of a suspected edge case and investigation * [diverging function support] * covers an unresolved question from the RFC * [fn pointers and shims] * covers important potential sources of unsoundness ## Documentation The rustc-dev-guide now has a chapter on [Implicit Caller Location][dev-guide]. I have an [open PR to the reference][attr-reference-pr] documenting the attribute. The intrinsic's [wrapper] includes some examples as well. ## Implementation History * 2019-10-02: [`#[track_caller]` feature gate (RFC 2091 1/N) rust-lang#65037](rust-lang#65037) * Picked up the patch that @ayosec had started on the feature gate. * 2019-10-13: [Add `Instance::resolve_for_fn_ptr` (RFC 2091 rust-lang#2/N) rust-lang#65182](rust-lang#65182) * 2019-10-20: ~~[WIP Add MIR argument for #[track_caller] (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65258](rust-lang#65258 * Abandoned approach to send location as a MIR argument. * 2019-10-28: [`std::panic::Location` is a lang_item, add `core::intrinsics::caller_location` (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65664](rust-lang#65664) * 2019-12-07: [Implement #[track_caller] attribute. (RFC 2091 4/N) rust-lang#65881](rust-lang#65881) * 2020-01-04: [libstd uses `core::panic::Location` where possible. rust-lang#67137](rust-lang#67137) * 2020-01-08: [`Option::{expect,unwrap}` and `Result::{expect, expect_err, unwrap, unwrap_err}` have `#[track_caller]` rust-lang#67887](rust-lang#67887) * 2020-01-20: [Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers rust-lang#68302](rust-lang#68302) (fixed rust-lang#68178) * 2020-03-23: [#[track_caller] in traits rust-lang#69251](rust-lang#69251) * 2020-03-24: [#[track_caller] on core::ops::{Index, IndexMut}. rust-lang#70234](rust-lang#70234) * 2020-04-08 [Support `#[track_caller]` on functions in `extern "Rust" { ... }` rust-lang#70916](rust-lang#70916) ## Unresolveds ### From the RFC > Currently the RFC simply prohibit applying #[track_caller] to trait methods as a future-proofing > measure. **Resolved.** See the dev-guide documentation and the tests section above. > Diverging functions should be supported. **Resolved.** See the tests section above. > The closure foo::{{closure}} should inherit most attributes applied to the function foo, ... **Resolved.** This unknown was related to specifics of the implementation which were made irrelevant by the final implementation. ### Binary Size I [instrumented track_caller to use custom sections][measure-size] in a local build and discovered relatively minor binary size usage for the feature overall. I'm leaving the issue open to discuss whether we want to upstream custom section support. There's an [open issue to discuss mitigation strategies][mitigate-size]. Some decisions remain about the "right" strategies to reduce size without overly constraining the compiler implementation. I'd be excited to see someone carry that work forward but my opinion is that we shouldn't block stabilization on implementing compiler flags for redaction. ### Specialization There's an [open issue][specialization] on the semantics of the attribute in specialization chains. I'm inclined to move forward with stabilization without an exact resolution here given that specialization is itself unstable, but I also think it should be an easy question to resolve. ### Location only points to the start of a call span rust-lang#69977 was resolved by rust-lang#73182, and the next step should probably be to [extend `Location` with a notion of the end of a call](rust-lang#73554). ### Regression of std's panic messages rust-lang#70963 should be resolved by serializing span hygeine to crate metadata: rust-lang#68686. [2091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2091-inline-semantic.md [dev-guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/codegen/implicit-caller-location.html [specialization]: rust-lang#70293 [measure-size]: rust-lang#70579 [mitigate-size]: rust-lang#70580 [attr-reference-pr]: rust-lang/reference#742 [wrapper]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.Location.html#method.caller [tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller [const/codegen equivalence]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/caller-location-fnptr-rt-ctfe-equiv.rs [diverging function support]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/diverging-caller-location.rs [use of attr in std]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/std-panic-locations.rs [fn pointers and shims]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-fn-ptr-with-arg.rs [trait attribute inheritance]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-trait-impls.rs [1.42 release announcement]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/03/12/Rust-1.42.html#useful-line-numbers-in-option-and-result-panic-messages
Stabilize `#[track_caller]`. # Stabilization Report RFC: [2091] Tracking issue: rust-lang#47809 ## Summary From the [rustc-dev-guide chapter][dev-guide]: > Take this example program: ```rust fn main() { let foo: Option<()> = None; foo.unwrap(); // this should produce a useful panic message! } ``` > Prior to Rust 1.42, panics like this `unwrap()` printed a location in libcore: ``` $ rustc +1.41.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value',...core\macros\mod.rs:15:40 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace. ``` > As of 1.42, we get a much more helpful message: ``` $ rustc +1.42.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', example.rs:3:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ``` > These error messages are achieved through a combination of changes to `panic!` internals to make use of `core::panic::Location::caller` and a number of `#[track_caller]` annotations in the standard library which propagate caller information. The attribute adds an implicit caller location argument to the ABI of annotated functions, but does not affect the type or MIR of the function. We implement the feature entirely in codegen and in the const evaluator. ## Bottom Line This PR stabilizes the use of `#[track_caller]` everywhere, including traits and extern blocks. It also stabilizes `core::panic::Location::caller`, although the use of that function in a const context remains gated by `#![feature(const_caller_location)]`. The implementation for the feature already changed the output of panic messages for a number of std functions, as described in the [1.42 release announcement]. The attribute's use in `Index` and `IndexMut` traits is visible to users since 1.44. ## Tests All of the tests for this feature live under [src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller][tests] in the repo. Noteworthy cases: * [use of attr in std] * validates user-facing benefit of the feature * [trait attribute inheritance] * covers subtle behavior designed during implementation and not RFC'd * [const/codegen equivalence] * this was the result of a suspected edge case and investigation * [diverging function support] * covers an unresolved question from the RFC * [fn pointers and shims] * covers important potential sources of unsoundness ## Documentation The rustc-dev-guide now has a chapter on [Implicit Caller Location][dev-guide]. I have an [open PR to the reference][attr-reference-pr] documenting the attribute. The intrinsic's [wrapper] includes some examples as well. ## Implementation History * 2019-10-02: [`#[track_caller]` feature gate (RFC 2091 1/N) rust-lang#65037](rust-lang#65037) * Picked up the patch that @ayosec had started on the feature gate. * 2019-10-13: [Add `Instance::resolve_for_fn_ptr` (RFC 2091 rust-lang#2/N) rust-lang#65182](rust-lang#65182) * 2019-10-20: ~~[WIP Add MIR argument for #[track_caller] (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65258](rust-lang#65258 * Abandoned approach to send location as a MIR argument. * 2019-10-28: [`std::panic::Location` is a lang_item, add `core::intrinsics::caller_location` (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65664](rust-lang#65664) * 2019-12-07: [Implement #[track_caller] attribute. (RFC 2091 4/N) rust-lang#65881](rust-lang#65881) * 2020-01-04: [libstd uses `core::panic::Location` where possible. rust-lang#67137](rust-lang#67137) * 2020-01-08: [`Option::{expect,unwrap}` and `Result::{expect, expect_err, unwrap, unwrap_err}` have `#[track_caller]` rust-lang#67887](rust-lang#67887) * 2020-01-20: [Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers rust-lang#68302](rust-lang#68302) (fixed rust-lang#68178) * 2020-03-23: [#[track_caller] in traits rust-lang#69251](rust-lang#69251) * 2020-03-24: [#[track_caller] on core::ops::{Index, IndexMut}. rust-lang#70234](rust-lang#70234) * 2020-04-08 [Support `#[track_caller]` on functions in `extern "Rust" { ... }` rust-lang#70916](rust-lang#70916) ## Unresolveds ### From the RFC > Currently the RFC simply prohibit applying #[track_caller] to trait methods as a future-proofing > measure. **Resolved.** See the dev-guide documentation and the tests section above. > Diverging functions should be supported. **Resolved.** See the tests section above. > The closure foo::{{closure}} should inherit most attributes applied to the function foo, ... **Resolved.** This unknown was related to specifics of the implementation which were made irrelevant by the final implementation. ### Binary Size I [instrumented track_caller to use custom sections][measure-size] in a local build and discovered relatively minor binary size usage for the feature overall. I'm leaving the issue open to discuss whether we want to upstream custom section support. There's an [open issue to discuss mitigation strategies][mitigate-size]. Some decisions remain about the "right" strategies to reduce size without overly constraining the compiler implementation. I'd be excited to see someone carry that work forward but my opinion is that we shouldn't block stabilization on implementing compiler flags for redaction. ### Specialization There's an [open issue][specialization] on the semantics of the attribute in specialization chains. I'm inclined to move forward with stabilization without an exact resolution here given that specialization is itself unstable, but I also think it should be an easy question to resolve. ### Location only points to the start of a call span rust-lang#69977 was resolved by rust-lang#73182, and the next step should probably be to [extend `Location` with a notion of the end of a call](rust-lang#73554). ### Regression of std's panic messages rust-lang#70963 should be resolved by serializing span hygeine to crate metadata: rust-lang#68686. [2091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2091-inline-semantic.md [dev-guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/codegen/implicit-caller-location.html [specialization]: rust-lang#70293 [measure-size]: rust-lang#70579 [mitigate-size]: rust-lang#70580 [attr-reference-pr]: rust-lang/reference#742 [wrapper]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.Location.html#method.caller [tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller [const/codegen equivalence]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/caller-location-fnptr-rt-ctfe-equiv.rs [diverging function support]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/diverging-caller-location.rs [use of attr in std]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/std-panic-locations.rs [fn pointers and shims]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-fn-ptr-with-arg.rs [trait attribute inheritance]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-trait-impls.rs [1.42 release announcement]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/03/12/Rust-1.42.html#useful-line-numbers-in-option-and-result-panic-messages
Stabilize `#[track_caller]`. # Stabilization Report RFC: [2091] Tracking issue: rust-lang#47809 ## Summary From the [rustc-dev-guide chapter][dev-guide]: > Take this example program: ```rust fn main() { let foo: Option<()> = None; foo.unwrap(); // this should produce a useful panic message! } ``` > Prior to Rust 1.42, panics like this `unwrap()` printed a location in libcore: ``` $ rustc +1.41.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value',...core\macros\mod.rs:15:40 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace. ``` > As of 1.42, we get a much more helpful message: ``` $ rustc +1.42.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', example.rs:3:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ``` > These error messages are achieved through a combination of changes to `panic!` internals to make use of `core::panic::Location::caller` and a number of `#[track_caller]` annotations in the standard library which propagate caller information. The attribute adds an implicit caller location argument to the ABI of annotated functions, but does not affect the type or MIR of the function. We implement the feature entirely in codegen and in the const evaluator. ## Bottom Line This PR stabilizes the use of `#[track_caller]` everywhere, including traits and extern blocks. It also stabilizes `core::panic::Location::caller`, although the use of that function in a const context remains gated by `#![feature(const_caller_location)]`. The implementation for the feature already changed the output of panic messages for a number of std functions, as described in the [1.42 release announcement]. The attribute's use in `Index` and `IndexMut` traits is visible to users since 1.44. ## Tests All of the tests for this feature live under [src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller][tests] in the repo. Noteworthy cases: * [use of attr in std] * validates user-facing benefit of the feature * [trait attribute inheritance] * covers subtle behavior designed during implementation and not RFC'd * [const/codegen equivalence] * this was the result of a suspected edge case and investigation * [diverging function support] * covers an unresolved question from the RFC * [fn pointers and shims] * covers important potential sources of unsoundness ## Documentation The rustc-dev-guide now has a chapter on [Implicit Caller Location][dev-guide]. I have an [open PR to the reference][attr-reference-pr] documenting the attribute. The intrinsic's [wrapper] includes some examples as well. ## Implementation History * 2019-10-02: [`#[track_caller]` feature gate (RFC 2091 1/N) rust-lang#65037](rust-lang#65037) * Picked up the patch that @ayosec had started on the feature gate. * 2019-10-13: [Add `Instance::resolve_for_fn_ptr` (RFC 2091 rust-lang#2/N) rust-lang#65182](rust-lang#65182) * 2019-10-20: ~~[WIP Add MIR argument for #[track_caller] (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65258](rust-lang#65258 * Abandoned approach to send location as a MIR argument. * 2019-10-28: [`std::panic::Location` is a lang_item, add `core::intrinsics::caller_location` (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65664](rust-lang#65664) * 2019-12-07: [Implement #[track_caller] attribute. (RFC 2091 4/N) rust-lang#65881](rust-lang#65881) * 2020-01-04: [libstd uses `core::panic::Location` where possible. rust-lang#67137](rust-lang#67137) * 2020-01-08: [`Option::{expect,unwrap}` and `Result::{expect, expect_err, unwrap, unwrap_err}` have `#[track_caller]` rust-lang#67887](rust-lang#67887) * 2020-01-20: [Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers rust-lang#68302](rust-lang#68302) (fixed rust-lang#68178) * 2020-03-23: [#[track_caller] in traits rust-lang#69251](rust-lang#69251) * 2020-03-24: [#[track_caller] on core::ops::{Index, IndexMut}. rust-lang#70234](rust-lang#70234) * 2020-04-08 [Support `#[track_caller]` on functions in `extern "Rust" { ... }` rust-lang#70916](rust-lang#70916) ## Unresolveds ### From the RFC > Currently the RFC simply prohibit applying #[track_caller] to trait methods as a future-proofing > measure. **Resolved.** See the dev-guide documentation and the tests section above. > Diverging functions should be supported. **Resolved.** See the tests section above. > The closure foo::{{closure}} should inherit most attributes applied to the function foo, ... **Resolved.** This unknown was related to specifics of the implementation which were made irrelevant by the final implementation. ### Binary Size I [instrumented track_caller to use custom sections][measure-size] in a local build and discovered relatively minor binary size usage for the feature overall. I'm leaving the issue open to discuss whether we want to upstream custom section support. There's an [open issue to discuss mitigation strategies][mitigate-size]. Some decisions remain about the "right" strategies to reduce size without overly constraining the compiler implementation. I'd be excited to see someone carry that work forward but my opinion is that we shouldn't block stabilization on implementing compiler flags for redaction. ### Specialization There's an [open issue][specialization] on the semantics of the attribute in specialization chains. I'm inclined to move forward with stabilization without an exact resolution here given that specialization is itself unstable, but I also think it should be an easy question to resolve. ### Location only points to the start of a call span rust-lang#69977 was resolved by rust-lang#73182, and the next step should probably be to [extend `Location` with a notion of the end of a call](rust-lang#73554). ### Regression of std's panic messages rust-lang#70963 should be resolved by serializing span hygeine to crate metadata: rust-lang#68686. [2091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2091-inline-semantic.md [dev-guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/codegen/implicit-caller-location.html [specialization]: rust-lang#70293 [measure-size]: rust-lang#70579 [mitigate-size]: rust-lang#70580 [attr-reference-pr]: rust-lang/reference#742 [wrapper]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.Location.html#method.caller [tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller [const/codegen equivalence]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/caller-location-fnptr-rt-ctfe-equiv.rs [diverging function support]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/diverging-caller-location.rs [use of attr in std]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/std-panic-locations.rs [fn pointers and shims]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-fn-ptr-with-arg.rs [trait attribute inheritance]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-trait-impls.rs [1.42 release announcement]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/03/12/Rust-1.42.html#useful-line-numbers-in-option-and-result-panic-messages
Stabilize `#[track_caller]`. # Stabilization Report RFC: [2091] Tracking issue: rust-lang#47809 ## Summary From the [rustc-dev-guide chapter][dev-guide]: > Take this example program: ```rust fn main() { let foo: Option<()> = None; foo.unwrap(); // this should produce a useful panic message! } ``` > Prior to Rust 1.42, panics like this `unwrap()` printed a location in libcore: ``` $ rustc +1.41.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value',...core\macros\mod.rs:15:40 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace. ``` > As of 1.42, we get a much more helpful message: ``` $ rustc +1.42.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', example.rs:3:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ``` > These error messages are achieved through a combination of changes to `panic!` internals to make use of `core::panic::Location::caller` and a number of `#[track_caller]` annotations in the standard library which propagate caller information. The attribute adds an implicit caller location argument to the ABI of annotated functions, but does not affect the type or MIR of the function. We implement the feature entirely in codegen and in the const evaluator. ## Bottom Line This PR stabilizes the use of `#[track_caller]` everywhere, including traits and extern blocks. It also stabilizes `core::panic::Location::caller`, although the use of that function in a const context remains gated by `#![feature(const_caller_location)]`. The implementation for the feature already changed the output of panic messages for a number of std functions, as described in the [1.42 release announcement]. The attribute's use in `Index` and `IndexMut` traits is visible to users since 1.44. ## Tests All of the tests for this feature live under [src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller][tests] in the repo. Noteworthy cases: * [use of attr in std] * validates user-facing benefit of the feature * [trait attribute inheritance] * covers subtle behavior designed during implementation and not RFC'd * [const/codegen equivalence] * this was the result of a suspected edge case and investigation * [diverging function support] * covers an unresolved question from the RFC * [fn pointers and shims] * covers important potential sources of unsoundness ## Documentation The rustc-dev-guide now has a chapter on [Implicit Caller Location][dev-guide]. I have an [open PR to the reference][attr-reference-pr] documenting the attribute. The intrinsic's [wrapper] includes some examples as well. ## Implementation History * 2019-10-02: [`#[track_caller]` feature gate (RFC 2091 1/N) rust-lang#65037](rust-lang#65037) * Picked up the patch that @ayosec had started on the feature gate. * 2019-10-13: [Add `Instance::resolve_for_fn_ptr` (RFC 2091 rust-lang#2/N) rust-lang#65182](rust-lang#65182) * 2019-10-20: ~~[WIP Add MIR argument for #[track_caller] (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65258](rust-lang#65258 * Abandoned approach to send location as a MIR argument. * 2019-10-28: [`std::panic::Location` is a lang_item, add `core::intrinsics::caller_location` (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65664](rust-lang#65664) * 2019-12-07: [Implement #[track_caller] attribute. (RFC 2091 4/N) rust-lang#65881](rust-lang#65881) * 2020-01-04: [libstd uses `core::panic::Location` where possible. rust-lang#67137](rust-lang#67137) * 2020-01-08: [`Option::{expect,unwrap}` and `Result::{expect, expect_err, unwrap, unwrap_err}` have `#[track_caller]` rust-lang#67887](rust-lang#67887) * 2020-01-20: [Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers rust-lang#68302](rust-lang#68302) (fixed rust-lang#68178) * 2020-03-23: [#[track_caller] in traits rust-lang#69251](rust-lang#69251) * 2020-03-24: [#[track_caller] on core::ops::{Index, IndexMut}. rust-lang#70234](rust-lang#70234) * 2020-04-08 [Support `#[track_caller]` on functions in `extern "Rust" { ... }` rust-lang#70916](rust-lang#70916) ## Unresolveds ### From the RFC > Currently the RFC simply prohibit applying #[track_caller] to trait methods as a future-proofing > measure. **Resolved.** See the dev-guide documentation and the tests section above. > Diverging functions should be supported. **Resolved.** See the tests section above. > The closure foo::{{closure}} should inherit most attributes applied to the function foo, ... **Resolved.** This unknown was related to specifics of the implementation which were made irrelevant by the final implementation. ### Binary Size I [instrumented track_caller to use custom sections][measure-size] in a local build and discovered relatively minor binary size usage for the feature overall. I'm leaving the issue open to discuss whether we want to upstream custom section support. There's an [open issue to discuss mitigation strategies][mitigate-size]. Some decisions remain about the "right" strategies to reduce size without overly constraining the compiler implementation. I'd be excited to see someone carry that work forward but my opinion is that we shouldn't block stabilization on implementing compiler flags for redaction. ### Specialization There's an [open issue][specialization] on the semantics of the attribute in specialization chains. I'm inclined to move forward with stabilization without an exact resolution here given that specialization is itself unstable, but I also think it should be an easy question to resolve. ### Location only points to the start of a call span rust-lang#69977 was resolved by rust-lang#73182, and the next step should probably be to [extend `Location` with a notion of the end of a call](rust-lang#73554). ### Regression of std's panic messages rust-lang#70963 should be resolved by serializing span hygeine to crate metadata: rust-lang#68686. [2091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2091-inline-semantic.md [dev-guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/codegen/implicit-caller-location.html [specialization]: rust-lang#70293 [measure-size]: rust-lang#70579 [mitigate-size]: rust-lang#70580 [attr-reference-pr]: rust-lang/reference#742 [wrapper]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.Location.html#method.caller [tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller [const/codegen equivalence]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/caller-location-fnptr-rt-ctfe-equiv.rs [diverging function support]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/diverging-caller-location.rs [use of attr in std]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/std-panic-locations.rs [fn pointers and shims]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-fn-ptr-with-arg.rs [trait attribute inheritance]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-trait-impls.rs [1.42 release announcement]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/03/12/Rust-1.42.html#useful-line-numbers-in-option-and-result-panic-messages
Stabilize `#[track_caller]`. # Stabilization Report RFC: [2091] Tracking issue: rust-lang#47809 ## Summary From the [rustc-dev-guide chapter][dev-guide]: > Take this example program: ```rust fn main() { let foo: Option<()> = None; foo.unwrap(); // this should produce a useful panic message! } ``` > Prior to Rust 1.42, panics like this `unwrap()` printed a location in libcore: ``` $ rustc +1.41.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value',...core\macros\mod.rs:15:40 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace. ``` > As of 1.42, we get a much more helpful message: ``` $ rustc +1.42.0 example.rs; example.exe thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', example.rs:3:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ``` > These error messages are achieved through a combination of changes to `panic!` internals to make use of `core::panic::Location::caller` and a number of `#[track_caller]` annotations in the standard library which propagate caller information. The attribute adds an implicit caller location argument to the ABI of annotated functions, but does not affect the type or MIR of the function. We implement the feature entirely in codegen and in the const evaluator. ## Bottom Line This PR stabilizes the use of `#[track_caller]` everywhere, including traits and extern blocks. It also stabilizes `core::panic::Location::caller`, although the use of that function in a const context remains gated by `#![feature(const_caller_location)]`. The implementation for the feature already changed the output of panic messages for a number of std functions, as described in the [1.42 release announcement]. The attribute's use in `Index` and `IndexMut` traits is visible to users since 1.44. ## Tests All of the tests for this feature live under [src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller][tests] in the repo. Noteworthy cases: * [use of attr in std] * validates user-facing benefit of the feature * [trait attribute inheritance] * covers subtle behavior designed during implementation and not RFC'd * [const/codegen equivalence] * this was the result of a suspected edge case and investigation * [diverging function support] * covers an unresolved question from the RFC * [fn pointers and shims] * covers important potential sources of unsoundness ## Documentation The rustc-dev-guide now has a chapter on [Implicit Caller Location][dev-guide]. I have an [open PR to the reference][attr-reference-pr] documenting the attribute. The intrinsic's [wrapper] includes some examples as well. ## Implementation History * 2019-10-02: [`#[track_caller]` feature gate (RFC 2091 1/N) rust-lang#65037](rust-lang#65037) * Picked up the patch that @ayosec had started on the feature gate. * 2019-10-13: [Add `Instance::resolve_for_fn_ptr` (RFC 2091 rust-lang#2/N) rust-lang#65182](rust-lang#65182) * 2019-10-20: ~~[WIP Add MIR argument for #[track_caller] (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65258](rust-lang#65258 * Abandoned approach to send location as a MIR argument. * 2019-10-28: [`std::panic::Location` is a lang_item, add `core::intrinsics::caller_location` (RFC 2091 3/N) rust-lang#65664](rust-lang#65664) * 2019-12-07: [Implement #[track_caller] attribute. (RFC 2091 4/N) rust-lang#65881](rust-lang#65881) * 2020-01-04: [libstd uses `core::panic::Location` where possible. rust-lang#67137](rust-lang#67137) * 2020-01-08: [`Option::{expect,unwrap}` and `Result::{expect, expect_err, unwrap, unwrap_err}` have `#[track_caller]` rust-lang#67887](rust-lang#67887) * 2020-01-20: [Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers rust-lang#68302](rust-lang#68302) (fixed rust-lang#68178) * 2020-03-23: [#[track_caller] in traits rust-lang#69251](rust-lang#69251) * 2020-03-24: [#[track_caller] on core::ops::{Index, IndexMut}. rust-lang#70234](rust-lang#70234) * 2020-04-08 [Support `#[track_caller]` on functions in `extern "Rust" { ... }` rust-lang#70916](rust-lang#70916) ## Unresolveds ### From the RFC > Currently the RFC simply prohibit applying #[track_caller] to trait methods as a future-proofing > measure. **Resolved.** See the dev-guide documentation and the tests section above. > Diverging functions should be supported. **Resolved.** See the tests section above. > The closure foo::{{closure}} should inherit most attributes applied to the function foo, ... **Resolved.** This unknown was related to specifics of the implementation which were made irrelevant by the final implementation. ### Binary Size I [instrumented track_caller to use custom sections][measure-size] in a local build and discovered relatively minor binary size usage for the feature overall. I'm leaving the issue open to discuss whether we want to upstream custom section support. There's an [open issue to discuss mitigation strategies][mitigate-size]. Some decisions remain about the "right" strategies to reduce size without overly constraining the compiler implementation. I'd be excited to see someone carry that work forward but my opinion is that we shouldn't block stabilization on implementing compiler flags for redaction. ### Specialization There's an [open issue][specialization] on the semantics of the attribute in specialization chains. I'm inclined to move forward with stabilization without an exact resolution here given that specialization is itself unstable, but I also think it should be an easy question to resolve. ### Location only points to the start of a call span rust-lang#69977 was resolved by rust-lang#73182, and the next step should probably be to [extend `Location` with a notion of the end of a call](rust-lang#73554). ### Regression of std's panic messages rust-lang#70963 should be resolved by serializing span hygeine to crate metadata: rust-lang#68686. [2091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2091-inline-semantic.md [dev-guide]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/codegen/implicit-caller-location.html [specialization]: rust-lang#70293 [measure-size]: rust-lang#70579 [mitigate-size]: rust-lang#70580 [attr-reference-pr]: rust-lang/reference#742 [wrapper]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.Location.html#method.caller [tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller [const/codegen equivalence]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/caller-location-fnptr-rt-ctfe-equiv.rs [diverging function support]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/diverging-caller-location.rs [use of attr in std]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/std-panic-locations.rs [fn pointers and shims]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-fn-ptr-with-arg.rs [trait attribute inheritance]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2091-track-caller/tracked-trait-impls.rs [1.42 release announcement]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/03/12/Rust-1.42.html#useful-line-numbers-in-option-and-result-panic-messages
I took a stab at measuring this for a TockOS kernel binary. I did so by following the recommendation at #70580 (comment) , modifying those lines to replace all filenames with I chose to use a Tock kernel binary as the subject of this test because many uses of Tock are severely size-constrained. The Tock Imix kernel is required to remain smaller than 180 kB to fit in the space available on that platform. Other Tock deployments require even smaller sizes. I consider binary size impact on these classes of embedded devices more important than the impact on traditional binaries, where size is less likely to be a significant concern anyway.
Key things to note:
Finally, I also took a measurement of code size with the compiler configured such that
|
…l, r=davidtwco Implement -Z location-detail flag This PR implements the `-Z location-detail` flag as described in rust-lang/rfcs#2091 . `-Z location-detail=val` controls what location details are tracked when using `caller_location`. This allows users to control what location details are printed as part of panic messages, by allowing them to exclude any combination of filenames, line numbers, and column numbers. This option is intended to provide users with a way to mitigate the size impact of `#[track_caller]`. Some measurements of the savings of this approach on an embedded binary can be found here: rust-lang#70579 (comment) . Closes rust-lang#70580 (unless people want to leave that open as a place for discussion of further improvements). This is my first real PR to rust, so any help correcting mistakes / understanding side effects / improving my tests is appreciated :) I have one question: RFC 2091 specified this as a debugging option (I think that is what -Z implies?). Does that mean this can never be stabilized without a separate MCP? If so, do I need to submit an MCP now, or is the initial RFC specifying this option sufficient for this to be merged as is, and then an MCP would be needed for eventual stabilization?
…l, r=davidtwco Implement -Z location-detail flag This PR implements the `-Z location-detail` flag as described in rust-lang/rfcs#2091 . `-Z location-detail=val` controls what location details are tracked when using `caller_location`. This allows users to control what location details are printed as part of panic messages, by allowing them to exclude any combination of filenames, line numbers, and column numbers. This option is intended to provide users with a way to mitigate the size impact of `#[track_caller]`. Some measurements of the savings of this approach on an embedded binary can be found here: rust-lang#70579 (comment) . Closes rust-lang#70580 (unless people want to leave that open as a place for discussion of further improvements). This is my first real PR to rust, so any help correcting mistakes / understanding side effects / improving my tests is appreciated :) I have one question: RFC 2091 specified this as a debugging option (I think that is what -Z implies?). Does that mean this can never be stabilized without a separate MCP? If so, do I need to submit an MCP now, or is the initial RFC specifying this option sufficient for this to be merged as is, and then an MCP would be needed for eventual stabilization?
…l, r=davidtwco Implement -Z location-detail flag This PR implements the `-Z location-detail` flag as described in rust-lang/rfcs#2091 . `-Z location-detail=val` controls what location details are tracked when using `caller_location`. This allows users to control what location details are printed as part of panic messages, by allowing them to exclude any combination of filenames, line numbers, and column numbers. This option is intended to provide users with a way to mitigate the size impact of `#[track_caller]`. Some measurements of the savings of this approach on an embedded binary can be found here: rust-lang#70579 (comment) . Closes rust-lang#70580 (unless people want to leave that open as a place for discussion of further improvements). This is my first real PR to rust, so any help correcting mistakes / understanding side effects / improving my tests is appreciated :) I have one question: RFC 2091 specified this as a debugging option (I think that is what -Z implies?). Does that mean this can never be stabilized without a separate MCP? If so, do I need to submit an MCP now, or is the initial RFC specifying this option sufficient for this to be merged as is, and then an MCP would be needed for eventual stabilization?
I think it would be interesting to allow putting the |
The largest unanswered questions about implicit caller location are about the binary size impact of the feature and how to offer users control over it.
There are three ways I see that
#[track_caller]
inflates binaries:Location
structs themselves&'static str
for every filename referenced by aLocation
We need to determine the impact to the ecosystem for each of these before deciding on mitigation strategy.
(1) was the main concern in the RFC but it was predicated on the assumption that
#[track_caller]
would affect inlining (an artifact of the implementation proposed). Since it doesn't affect inlining now, the only lost optimization in panicking branches would be for cases where LLVM previously used knowledge of a single constant panic location to make the failure path of a function smaller.We've not yet had any reports of this and some ad-hoc measurements don't show any difference. This matches my mental model of LLVM's ability to optimize calling conventions which is "very expensive magic". I'm open to ideas for how to better assess this, including "wait and see".
TLDR Re (2) and (3),
Location
s are 24 bytes whensize_of::<usize>() == size_of::<u64>()
and we don't currently measure how many we encode. We should put these in their own section to make it easier to measure.Which filenames do we encode? In practice: probably all source files. We should put these in their own section too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: