-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
docs: add documentation and example of using stack maps for GC #11710
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
docs: add documentation and example of using stack maps for GC #11710
Conversation
cc: @fitzgen, you probably have more context here? |
There seems to be an issue with getting the correct return addresses when walking the stack on x64 Linux. From what I gather, it's because Rust and/or LLVM doesn't use frame pointers the same way on some targets. It can be fixed by forcing frame pointers using |
I gather you're building your own runtime, but to offer parallel wisdom from Wasmtime, we know that we can only trust any invariants about the code that we ourselves generate with Cranelift; so we record entry and exit FPs for an "activation" of Wasm (call into Wasm from host, call from Wasm back out to host) and only walk the FP chain in that range. In general, when interacting with code produced by other compilers you need to follow their ABI (which in general on Linux means no frame pointers required, and using DWARF to interpret stack frames and unwind them). |
Is there an "easy" solution which won't pollute the example with stack walking code? Could something like the |
No, Wasmtime's unwinder has nothing to do with native stack frames; it is specific to Wasmtime's metadata format. You'll probably want to do similar to Wasmtime (and Cranelift's |
I've tried implementing something similar to what Wasmtime does, but I'm a little in over my head with this. The new implementation walks frame entries which are pushed and popped from trampolines, but the stack pointer is way off. There might be a simple solution to this, but I might've stared at this code for too long. |
Hi @maxnatamo, I don't have time to help debug this example program. In general, I'd suggest simplifying as much as possible, doing nothing else but saving the FP/SP that bookend each activation, make sure that works in isolation, and then slowly add more from there, checking that things look right along the way. In the meantime, adding the doc comment expansions here that we talked about on Zulip might be the expeditious option. |
I can split the documentation entry and example into two separate PRs, if that helps. Then if I can't get the example working, the documentation can still be merged in. |
x64
andaarch64
(only tested onaarch64
macOS). The code might be slightly overdone, but it was also copied from a side-project.This was originally discussed on Zulip.