Backports for julia 1.11.7#59336
Conversation
…54840) Like #54671, but for `speccache_eq`. Saw another segfault with this in the stack trace, hence this fix. I also looked for other uses of `jl_smallintset_lookup` and there's one in `idset.c`. That doesn't appear to be racy but I'm not familiar with the code, so maybe you can take a look at it in case we need to push a fix for that one too @gbaraldi or @vtjnash? (cherry picked from commit dd1ed17)
This was in DAECompiler.jl code found by @serenity4. He also mentioned that writing up how one might go and fix a bug like this so i'll give a quick writeup (this was a very simple bug so it might not be too interesting) The original crash which looked something like > %19 = alloca [10 x i64], align 8 %155 = insertelement <4 x ptr> poison, ptr %19, i32 0 Unexpected instruction > [898844] signal 6 (-6): Aborted in expression starting at /home/gbaraldi/DAECompiler.jl/test/reflection.jl:28 pthread_kill at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line) gsignal at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line) abort at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line) RecursivelyVisit<llvm::IntrinsicInst, LateLowerGCFrame::PlaceRootsAndUpdateCalls(llvm::ArrayRef<int>, int, State&, std::map<llvm::Value*, std::pair<int, int> >)::<lambda(llvm::AllocaInst*&)>::<lambda(llvm::Use&)> > at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:803 operator() at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:2560 [inlined] PlaceRootsAndUpdateCalls at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:2576 runOnFunction at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:2638 run at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:2675 run at /home/gbaraldi/julia4/usr/include/llvm/IR/PassManagerInternal.h:91 which means it was crashing inside of late-gc-lowering, so the first thing I did was ran julia and the same test with LLVM_ASSERTIONS=1 and FORCE_ASSERTIONS=1 to see if LLVM complained about a malformed module, and both were fine. Next step was trying to get the failing code out for inspection. Easiest way is to do `export JULIA_LLVM_ARGS="--print-before=LateLowerGCFrame --print-module-scope"` and pipe the output to a file. The file is huge, but since it's a crash in LLVM we know that the last thing is what we want, and that gave me the IR I wanted. To verify that this is failing I did `make -C src install-analysis-deps` to install the LLVM machinery (opt...). That gets put in the `tools` directory of a julia build. Then I checked if this crashed outside of julia by doing `./opt -load-pass-plugin=../lib/libjulia-codegen.dylib --passes=LateLowerGCFrame -S test.ll -o tmp3.ll `. This is run from inside the tools dir so your paths might vary (the -S is so LLVM doesn't generate bitcode) and my code did crash, however it was over 500 lines of IR which makes it harder to debug and to write a test. Next step then is to minimize the crash by doing [`llvm-reduce`](https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-reduce.html) over it (it's basically creduce but optimized for LLVM IR) which gave me a 2 line reproducer (in this case apparently just having the insertelement was enough for the pass to fail). One thing to be wary is that llvm-reduce will usually make very weird code, so it might be useful to modify the code slightly so it doesn't look odd (it will have unreachable basic-blocks and such). After the cleanup fixing the bug here wasn't interesting but this doesn't apply generally. And also always transform your reduced IR into a test to put in llvmpasses. (cherry picked from commit 906d348)
When this API was added, this function inlined, which is important, because the API relies on the allocation of the `Ref` being elided. At some point (I went back to 1.8) this regressed. For example, it is currently responsible for substantially all non-Expr allocations in JuliaParser. Before (parsing all of Base with JuliaParser): ``` │ Memory estimate: 76.93 MiB, allocs estimate: 719922. ``` After: ``` │ Memory estimate: 53.31 MiB, allocs estimate: 156. ``` Also add a test to make sure this doesn't regress again. (cherry picked from commit d6294ba)
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 3ed13ea)
Currently, `similar(::CodeUnits)` works as expected by going through the
generic `AbstractArray` method. However, the fallback method hit by
`similar(::Type{<:CodeUnits}, dims)` does not work, as it assumes the
existence of a constructor that accepts an `UndefInitializer`. This can
be made to work by defining a corresponding `similar` method that
returns an `Array`.
One could make a case that this is a bugfix since it was arguably a bug
that this method didn't work given that `CodeUnits` is an
`AbstractArray` subtype and the other `similar` methods work. If anybody
buys that argument, it could be nice to backport this; it came up in
some internal code that uses Arrow.jl and JSON3.jl together.
(cherry picked from commit 8e524c7)
would fix #57170, fix #54623 @nanosoldier `runbenchmarks("array", vs=":master")` (cherry picked from commit e853a4f)
(cherry picked from commit c0cc1e1)
(cherry picked from commit 2349f43)
(cherry picked from commit 107e1ac)
(cherry picked from commit fde79f5)
(cherry picked from commit 1f6eff1)
|
I have a Distributed.jl bugfix to backport, but I first need to do the backport in the Distributed repo, and then I'll bump Distributed here. |
…release-julia-1.11` (but keep the commit the same) (#59390) This PR will be followed up with a stdlib bump with the Distributed backports.
…o e9b9023 (#59391) Stdlib: Distributed URL: https://github.com/JuliaLang/Distributed.jl Stdlib branch: release-julia-1.11 Julia branch: backports-release-1.11 Old commit: 6c7cdb5 New commit: e9b9023 Julia version: 1.11.5 Distributed version: 1.11.0(Does not match) Bump invoked by: @DilumAluthge Powered by: [BumpStdlibs.jl](https://github.com/JuliaLang/BumpStdlibs.jl) Diff: JuliaLang/Distributed.jl@6c7cdb5...e9b9023 ``` $ git log --oneline 6c7cdb5..e9b9023 e9b9023 Backports for Julia 1.11.x (#141) ``` Co-authored-by: DilumAluthge <[email protected]>
|
Okay, I've pushed two commits to this branch:
@KristofferC Should I edit the PR description manually and add these two PRs to the list? Or would that break the backporter script? |
|
We should get the openblas patch in: #59346 |
|
CI is currently failing on this PR, because of segfaults in multiple test sets. Here is a MWE that reproduces the segfault: test_list = [
"ambiguous",
]
Base.runtests(test_list)With that MWE, bisect blames 3b04664 (which backports #58837): Here are the details of the bisect (click to expand):I ran the bisect on Linux x86_64. My starting good commit was: 9615af0 My starting bad commit was: 562699a Here is my #!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euf -o pipefail
which -a ccache
make cleanall
make distclean
rm -f Make.user
echo "USECCACHE=1" >> Make.user
make -j16
./julia ../test.jlHere are the contents of the test_list = [
"ambiguous",
]
Base.runtests(test_list)The |
|
I've confirmed that reverting 3b04664 locally fixes my MWE. |
|
Okay, we are very close to green CI on this PR now. The last failure is |
|
Alright, I'll wait for CI to finish (just to double-check that it is all green now), and then I'll kick off PkgEval. |
|
Much of CI is green now, including the previously-failing |
|
@nanosoldier |
|
CI is all green now. |
|
Hm, I don't see the nanosoldier notification showing that it is running. |
|
@nanosoldier |
|
The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected. Report summary❗ Packages that crashed3 packages crashed only on the current version.
19 packages crashed on the previous version too. ✖ Packages that failed33 packages failed only on the current version.
3109 packages failed on the previous version too. ✔ Packages that passed tests40 packages passed tests only on the current version.
6417 packages passed tests on the previous version too. ➖ Packages that were skipped altogether1 packages were skipped only on the current version.
1310 packages were skipped on the previous version too. |
|
@nanosoldier |
|
The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected. Report summary✖ Packages that failed2 packages failed only on the current version.
3 packages failed on the previous version too. ✔ Packages that passed tests2 packages passed tests only on the current version.
27 packages passed tests on the previous version too. |
|
@KristofferC The JuliaInterpreter failure looks real? |
|
Nah, it just that test didn't run at all on the baseline due to: |
|
Ah cool. From the log, that looks like the only JuliaInterpreter test that failed, so presumably I can ignore JuliaInterpreter? |
|
Okay, so if we ignore JuliaInterpreter, then the only remaining PkgEval failure is ONSAS.jl, which failed with one error: |
|
I'll try it again, just to make sure it still reproduces. |
|
@nanosoldier |
|
Okay, so locally I can reproduce the ONSAS.jl failure (an
However, the failure is non-deterministic. When I run my reproducer1 multiple times in a row, sometimes it passes and sometimes it fails.
Therefore, I think that this is a non-deterministic failure that already exists on I've opened mvanzulli/ONSAS.jl#537. Footnotes
|
|
To summarize the current status of PkgEval on this PR: There are currently two packages failing:
Therefore, my conclusion is that PkgEval looks good on this PR. |
|
The package evaluation job you requested has completed - no new issues were detected. Report summary✔ Packages that passed tests1 packages passed tests on the previous version too. |
|
Ugh this defaulted to squash-merge, which isn't correct. That's my bad. We want to regular merge backports PRs, so that people can bisect on the release branch. I'll fix this. |
Merge branch `backports-release-1.11` into `release-1.11` #59336
|
I've fixed this. It's now a regular merge commit (not a squash merge). This will allow people to bisect on the |
…ion for null ptr comparisons") to Julia 1.11.x (#59446) Backports #59259 to 1.11 (cherry picked from commit 920df7a). For more details, see #59445 (comment). Targets `backports-release-1.11` (#59336). --------- Co-authored-by: Gabriel Baraldi <[email protected]>
16 participants
Backported PRs:
using Foo: Foo, ...in package code (was: "using considered harmful") #42080Ptrvalues static-show w/ type-information #58584similarmethod forType{<:CodeUnits}#57826Need manual backport:
@time_imports@trace_compile@trace_dispatch#58011exp_impltopow#58062onefor theSizedArraytest helper #58209Coremethods from newly-inferred list #58510IteratorSizemethod forGenerator#58110hygienic-scopes in inner macro expansions #58965Contains multiple commits, manual intervention needed:
structto hard #56755--project=@scriptwhen outside script directory #56351jl_type_hashis concrete evaluated) #58401Non-merged PRs with backport label:
--trace-compile#58535transcode: prevent Windows sysimage invalidation #58038@nospecializeforstring_index_err#57604displaysizeto theIOContextused by the REPL #55499isfile_casesensitivefixes on Windows #55220@inboundsandBase.@propagate_inbounds#50157