-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
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
ICE: assertion failed: ptr::eq(context.tcx.gcx as *const _ as *const (), tcx.gcx as *const _ as *const ()), compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs #110564
Comments
This occurred after testing the change at commit 9c51cf7. This is also occurring only on our mac builder. So far only one instance. |
Are you able to consistently reproduce the issue, and only after that commit? |
This is a sanity assertion that should never be hit. It implies that there are two global contexts in the compilation session, which makes no sense. It's entirely possible that stage2 rustc is getting miscompiled. Do you have any weird configs? |
@Nashenas88 if you are hitting this reliably, can you apply this diff and post the new ICE message? I'd expect it to show the same numerical values for both pointers. diff --git a/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs b/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs
index fb0d909307e..f2a93ea7e25 100644
--- a/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs
+++ b/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context/tls.rs
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ pub fn with_related_context<'tcx, F, R>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, f: F) -> R
assert!(ptr::eq(
context.tcx.gcx as *const _ as *const (),
tcx.gcx as *const _ as *const ()
- ));
+ ), "{:?} != {:?}", context.tcx.gcx as *const _, tcx.gcx as *const _);
let context: &ImplicitCtxt<'_, '_> = unsafe { mem::transmute(context) };
|
@jyn514 @Nilstrieb unfortunately this hasn't reproduced. Our config.toml is generated. It can be seen here: https://logs.chromium.org/logs/fuchsia/buildbucket/cr-buildbucket/8783352442962811473/+/u/generate_config.toml/raw_io.output_text And these were the environment variables: |
all those options look pretty reasonable; the only thing that stands out is that we don't test |
Why are you using fat LTO in the first place? Have you measured the performance impact (or binary size impact)? ThinLTO was measured to be faster: #103453 |
We were following #101403 and must've missed that that was using thin instead of fat, or just assumed fat would be faster. We can always switch to thin.
|
Still though, I find it fairly alarming that there would be a miscompile in rustc using supported options. |
Code
Something in the standard library. We caught this in our integration pipeline.
Meta
rustc --version --verbose
:Error output
Link to full build output here.
Backtrace
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: