Skip to content

x86 (32/64): go back to passing SIMD vectors by-ptr #141309

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

x86 (32/64): go back to passing SIMD vectors by-ptr #141309

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+19 −46

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung commented May 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #139029 by partially reverting #135408 and going back to passing SIMD vectors by-ptr on x86. Sadly, by-val confuses the LLVM inliner so much that it's not worth it...

r? @tgross35
Cc @nikic

try-job: test-various*
try-job: x86_64-gnu-nopt
try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 20, 2025
@RalfJung RalfJung mentioned this pull request May 20, 2025
Open
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 20, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#141309 - RalfJung:x86-simd-abi, r=<try>
11be405 
x86 (32/64): go back to passing SIMD vectors by-ptr

Fixes rust-lang#139029 by partially reverting rust-lang#135408 and going back to passing SIMD vectors by-ptr on x86. Sadly, by-val confuses the LLVM inliner so much that it's not worth it...

r? `@tgross35`
Cc `@nikic`

try-job: `test-various*`
try-job: x86_64-gnu-nopt
try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 20, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 436f812 with merge 11be405...

tgross35
tgross35 approved these changes May 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tgross35 tgross35 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code changes LGTM assuming the try job passes. However, I think it's worth waiting until 1-2 more people weigh in and agree this is worth a revert.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 20, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 11be405 (11be4058a43b716323bc6c2f5987d03a309c6d2c)

nikic
nikic approved these changes May 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@nikic nikic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree that we should go back to the old ABI for now. Can always switch back after the LLVM issue is fixed.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

Is there an LLVM issue we can reference?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nikic nikic nikic approved these changes

@tgross35 tgross35 tgross35 approved these changes

Assignees

@tgross35 tgross35

Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

pclmulqdq intrinsics don't inline well across target_feature changes anymore
5 participants
@RalfJung @bors @nikic @tgross35 @rustbot