Skip to content

[win] Ignore MSVC linker warning 4217 #140954

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dpaoliello
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes a regression from #140176

As part of fixing linking statics for Arm64EC, we needed to correctly mark statics with the DATA attribute in the generated def file.

A side-effect of this is that statics that need to be imported must be marked with dllimport.

This then caused issues with __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable as it is marked extern "Rust" in the static library (indicating that it is a foreign item, thus it is linked into the binary), but the definition is generated by the compiler (in some crates). MSVC's linker would raise warning 4286 to complain about marking a symbol as dllimport that is defined in an obj file, but LLD is raising warning 4217 to complain that the symbol is declared in one obj but imported by another (it's possible the difference is due to the number of codegen-units and where the definition/declarations happen to land across the objs).

The fix here is to suppress warning 4217 as well.

Long term, it would be ideal to avoid marking __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable as dllimport if we know that the compiler will be generating it in the current crate.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 12, 2025

r? @oli-obk

rustbot has assigned @oli-obk.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 12, 2025

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

@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 12, 2025
@dpaoliello
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @zmodem

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

r? @bjorn3

@rustbot rustbot assigned bjorn3 and unassigned oli-obk May 12, 2025
@dpaoliello dpaoliello closed this May 15, 2025
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 7, 2025
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function

This fixes a long sequence of issues:

1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: rust-lang#138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<rust-lang#140176 (comment)>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: rust-lang#140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <rust-lang#140176 (comment)>. At that point, my original change was reverted (rust-lang#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.

Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.

Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.

There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.

There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).

Build with this change applied BEFORE rust-lang#140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>

Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for rust-lang#128602)

r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2025
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function

This fixes a long sequence of issues:

1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: rust-lang#138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<rust-lang#140176 (comment)>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: rust-lang#140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <rust-lang#140176 (comment)>. At that point, my original change was reverted (rust-lang#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.

Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.

Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.

There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.

There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).

Build with this change applied BEFORE rust-lang#140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>

Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for rust-lang#128602)

r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2025
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function

This fixes a long sequence of issues:

1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: rust-lang#138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<rust-lang#140176 (comment)>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: rust-lang#140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <rust-lang#140176 (comment)>. At that point, my original change was reverted (rust-lang#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.

Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.

Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.

There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.

There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).

Build with this change applied BEFORE rust-lang#140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>

Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for rust-lang#128602)

r? ``@bjorn3``
cc ``@jieyouxu``
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants