Skip to content
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

Backports for 1.11.4 #57183

Open
wants to merge 18 commits into
base: release-1.11
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Backports for 1.11.4 #57183

wants to merge 18 commits into from

Conversation

KristofferC
Copy link
Member

@KristofferC KristofferC commented Jan 28, 2025

Backported PRs:

Need manual backport:

Contains multiple commits, manual intervention needed:

Non-merged PRs with backport label:

N5N3 and others added 3 commits January 28, 2025 14:39
The main motivation of this PR is to fix #55807.
dc689fe tries to remove the slow
`may_contain_union_decision` check by re-organizing the code path. Now
the fast path has been removed and most of its optimization has been
integrated into the preserved slow path.
Since the slow path stores all inner ∃ decisions on the outer most R
stack, there might be overflow risk.
aee69a4 should fix that concern.

The reported MWE now becomes
```julia
  0.000002 seconds
  0.000040 seconds (105 allocations: 4.828 KiB, 52.00% compilation time)
  0.000023 seconds (105 allocations: 4.828 KiB, 49.36% compilation time)
  0.000026 seconds (105 allocations: 4.828 KiB, 50.38% compilation time)
  0.000027 seconds (105 allocations: 4.828 KiB, 54.95% compilation time)
  0.000019 seconds (106 allocations: 4.922 KiB, 49.73% compilation time)
  0.000024 seconds (105 allocations: 4.828 KiB, 52.24% compilation time)
```

Local bench also shows that 72855cd slightly accelerates
`OmniPackage.jl`'s loading
```julia
julia> @time using OmniPackage
# v1.11rc4
 20.525278 seconds (25.36 M allocations: 1.606 GiB, 8.48% gc time, 12.89% compilation time: 77% of which was recompilation)
# v1.11rc4+aee69a4+72855cd
 19.527871 seconds (24.92 M allocations: 1.593 GiB, 8.88% gc time, 15.13% compilation time: 82% of which was recompilation)
```

(cherry picked from commit f3a36d7)
@KristofferC KristofferC added the release Release management and versioning. label Jan 28, 2025
topolarity and others added 2 commits January 28, 2025 15:24
We were deleting code from external abstract interpreters since
bdf8219.
Fixes JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#2637. Not sure how to
write tests for this :(

---------

Co-authored-by: Jeff Bezanson <jeff.bezanson@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 832f084)
nsajko and others added 11 commits February 10, 2025 16:49
…rror message (#57321)

Backport of PR #56946 to v1.11.

Co-authored-by: Shuhei Kadowaki
<40514306+aviatesk@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit a3f336f)
This was noted in the original review of that PR by the PR author, but
was for some reason not fixed at that time:
#46693 (comment)

(cherry picked from commit db874ff)
Noticed in code reading, that 35e4a1f
simplified this incorrectly resulting in all arguments being assigned to
the function type, and then 7f8635f
further broke the return type expected for the failure case.

Co-authored-by: Shuhei Kadowaki <40514306+aviatesk@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 65de014)
…lignment to LLVM (#56938)

Fixes #56937

---------

Co-authored-by: Oscar Smith <oscardssmith@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 1e2758e)
…ead of the attempted written bytes. (#56980)

(cherry picked from commit 6ac351a)
We somehow just got (un)lucky that `DFS!` at
Compiler/src/ssair/domtree.jl:184 just happened to store exactly the
same value as this pointer in this particular memory location
previously, so that this branch on `undef` hit exactly the right value
to fail. What are the odds?

Seen on a CI run (with rr)

The odds of this happening seem somewhere around 2^60 against, to 1 for
each time. So that seems impressive we hit this even this once.

But we did, and the proof is here, caught in rr:

https://buildkite.com/julialang/julia-master/builds/43366#019425d7-67fd-4f33-a025-6d7cd6181649
```
      From worker 6:	julia: /cache/build/tester-amdci5-10/julialang/julia-master/src/gc-stock.h:492: gc_big_object_link: Assertion `node->header != gc_bigval_sentinel_tag' failed.
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	[3877] signal 6 (-6): Aborted
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	in expression starting at none:1
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	gsignal at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line)
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	abort at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line)
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	unknown function (ip: 0x7fb9a4b5040e) at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	__assert_fail at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line)
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	gc_big_object_link at /cache/build/tester-amdci5-10/julialang/julia-master/src/gc-stock.h:492 [inlined]
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	gc_setmark_big at /cache/build/tester-amdci5-10/julialang/julia-master/src/gc-stock.c:276
2025-01-02 07:47:22 UTC	      From worker 6:	jl_gc_big_alloc_inner at /cache/build/tester-amdci5-10/julialang/julia-master/src/gc-stock.h:491
```

(cherry picked from commit 36472a7)
…Bool representations (#57080)

Fixes #54886
Rule introduced by 55cee67

(cherry picked from commit 4e13e0e)
The previous implementation was incorrect, leading to failing to mark
variables correctly. The new implementation is more conservative. This
simple analysis assumes that inference has normally run or that
performance doesn't matter for a particular block of code.

Fixes #56996

(cherry picked from commit b76fd9f)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release Release management and versioning.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants