[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokes by jkurdek · Pull Request #101122 · dotnet/runtime

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

jkurdek · 2024-04-16T15:27:29Z

Adds support for SwiftError in Swift reverse pinvokes. With this changes basic pinvokes using primitive types and SwiftSelf/SwiftError arguments should work. Contributes to #100010

Works on arm64/amd64.

kotlarmilos

Thanks, looks great! Do you plan to include the amd64 support in this PR?

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:33:45Z

+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);
+ } else if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_R21, 0);


Please add a comment here for clarity.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-16T15:40:27Z

+ }
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_NATIVE_TO_MANAGED) {
+ code = emit_ldrx (code, ARMREG_IP0, cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_basereg, GTMREG_TO_INT (cfg->arch.swift_error_var->inst_offset));
+ code = emit_strx (code, ARMREG_R21, ARMREG_IP0, 0);


Does this align with the CoreCLR implementation? It seems intuitive to load swifterror reg into the SwiftError argument, but I wonder if such cases are expected.

For the CoreCLR implementation, RyuJIT does not load the error register's current value into the SwiftError arg upon method entry. The JIT implementation represents the error value by creating a SwiftError "pseudo-local", and converts all usages of the SwiftError* out parameter into usages of the local's address (see #100692). This approach allows us to be quite liberal in optimizing uses of the SwiftError* parameter (for example, we can promote the SwiftError::Value member to its own local, and enregister it), but with our implementation, I believe the initial error value upon method entry is undefined.

@kotlarmilos do we want to remove loading swifterror reg into the SwiftError to align?

I believe it's beneficial to align with the CoreCLR implementation. However, since it is undefined and if there are no performance implications, we can leave it as is.

amanasifkhalid

LGTM so far -- thanks!

amanasifkhalid · 2024-04-16T16:06:53Z

 cfg->arch.swift_error_var = ins;
- cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;
+ if (cfg->method->wrapper_type == MONO_WRAPPER_MANAGED_TO_NATIVE)
+ cfg->used_int_regs |= 1 << ARMREG_R21;


It might be helpful to explain here that in the NATIVE_TO_MANAGED case, the error register is functioning as an extra return register, and thus isn't treated as callee-save.

matouskozak · 2024-04-18T08:17:14Z

Good job! Note for the CI test coverage, we have a good coverage for osx-x64 (mini and interpreter) on the runtime pipeline. For arm64, we only have interpreter coverage running on runtime-extra-platforms pipeline.

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T10:09:53Z

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

azure-pipelines · 2024-04-25T10:10:12Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

kotlarmilos

LGTM!

kotlarmilos · 2024-04-25T13:14:21Z

- ins->inst_offset = ainfo->offset + ARGS_OFFSET;
 offset = ALIGN_TO (offset, sizeof (target_mgreg_t));
+ ins->inst_basereg = cfg->frame_reg;
+ ins->inst_offset = offset;


Why it doesn't include the ARGS_OFFSET offset between fp and the first argument in the callee?

ainfo->offset was always 0 here. So it was always allocated at ARGS_OFFSET from the beginning. I think that offset already includes information about the distance.

The Swift types are specified either at the beginning or the end of signature. We don't enforce strict signature rules, but it would be beneficial to make them more general if possible. Can it still function if SwiftError is specified as the last argument, using ainfo->offset instead of offset?
@amanasifkhalid, what are the limitations from the CoreCLR side?

We don't enforce any signature rules, either. The Swift special register types can appear anywhere in the signature's parameter list.

@kotlarmilos i think for that to work with ainfo->offset without any modifications, the error would have to be the first argument. We could probably update ainfo->offset in get_call_info so that it works for every position. I'm not sure what are the benefits of using ainfo->offset though, as the current solution works for every position.

Ok, sounds good. I forgot that the ainfo->offset is always 0 for swifterror in the get_call_info.

jkurdek · 2024-04-26T10:14:21Z

@lambdageek could you take a look?

lambdageek

looks good to me. although by this point you and Milos know way more about how the calling convention code works.

* initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64 * added comments * fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64 * implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64 * disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now * add comments

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

initialized swift reverse pinvokes for mini jit arm64
94ae2a4

jkurdek requested a review from kotlarmilos April 16, 2024 15:27

ghost added the area-VM-meta-mono label Apr 16, 2024

dotnet-policy-serviceBot assigned jkurdek Apr 16, 2024

kotlarmilos reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

kotlarmilos requested review from amanasifkhalid and matouskozak April 16, 2024 15:41

amanasifkhalid reviewed Apr 16, 2024
View reviewed changes

This was referenced Apr 16, 2024
[wasm] System.Text.Json.Tests running out of memory #98578
Closed
[browser][MT] TIMED_OUT but 0 was expected #99888
Closed
System.Text.Json failing some large file tests #59678
Closed

added comments
8f8a71a

jkurdek changed the title ~~[Mono] Add basic support for Swift reverse pinvokes~~[mono] Add SwiftError support for Swift reverse pinvokesApr 17, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into swift-reverse-pinvokes
74c708a

This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
Timeout in System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101193
Closed
[browser] RuntimeError: memory access out of bounds #96546
Closed

jkurdek added 2 commits April 24, 2024 23:55

fixed reverse pinvokes error passing on arm64
97003cd

implemented swift reverse pinvoke error passing on amd64
1ba2a83

This was referenced Apr 25, 2024
clang crashing on osx #99150
Closed
WasmTestOnChrome-System.Runtime.Tests.WorkItemExecution fails with exit code 3221226505 #101464
Closed
Long Running Test: System.Text.Json.Tests.Utf8JsonWriterTests.WriteNumbers #101522
Closed
Dead lettering tests #101524
Closed

jkurdek marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2024 08:36

jkurdek requested review from lambdageek and steveisok as code owners April 25, 2024 08:36

build-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
[WASI][AOT] LLVM ERROR: out of memory #101533
Closed

disable SwiftErrorHandling tests on mono interpreter for now
32455a4

add comments
6e7620d

kotlarmilos approved these changes Apr 25, 2024
View reviewed changes

lambdageek reviewed May 6, 2024
View reviewed changes

jkurdek merged commit 5e949e1 into dotnet:mainMay 6, 2024

kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
[mono] Implement UnmanagedCallersOnly support for Swift calling convention #100010
Closed
2 tasks

github-actionsBot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2024

Uh oh!

Conversation

jkurdek commented Apr 16, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kotlarmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amanasifkhalidApr 16, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amanasifkhalid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

matouskozak commented Apr 18, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kotlarmilos commented Apr 25, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelinesBot commented Apr 25, 2024

Uh oh!

kotlarmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kotlarmilosApr 25, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jkurdekApr 25, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kotlarmilosApr 26, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jkurdek commented Apr 26, 2024

Uh oh!

lambdageek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

jkurdek commented Apr 16, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kotlarmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amanasifkhalidApr 16, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

jkurdek commented Apr 16, 2024•
edited
Loading

amanasifkhalidApr 16, 2024•
edited
Loading

matouskozak commented Apr 18, 2024•
edited
Loading

kotlarmilosApr 25, 2024•
edited
Loading

jkurdekApr 25, 2024•
edited
Loading

kotlarmilosApr 26, 2024•
edited
Loading

jkurdek commented Apr 16, 2024•
edited
Loading

amanasifkhalidApr 16, 2024•
edited
Loading

matouskozak commented Apr 18, 2024•
edited
Loading

kotlarmilosApr 25, 2024•
edited
Loading

jkurdekApr 25, 2024•
edited
Loading

kotlarmilosApr 26, 2024•
edited
Loading