-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
Move PAM generation to build time, optimizing download size #157
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
Conversation
@Rahix just a reminder about this. |
Is there still interest in this PR? Not to rush, but I'd like to know, since if there's not or not yet, I'll hold off on fixing CI. It's failing because this automated approach doesn't need the Makefile, and the current CI code expects it to be there. |
b109bb2
to
0d3187c
Compare
Looking over the patch series it looks like it's trying to accomplish multiple independent efforts. As a diff increases in size or impact it becomes much harder to review. If the primary motivation here is to transition from the makefile to build.rs then I would suggest trying to move anything unrelated into separate pull requests. For example, the first commit in the series ("refactor patches ...") doesn't appear to support the build.rs migration and likely adds unrelated complexity. I have the same concern for the second and third patches in the series too. |
The focus was on the build.rs transition, and the earlier commits help with that, but I could split them out. Here's my reasoning for the current series, and how I plan to shorten the diff:
I'll wait to hear your opinions on what I propose above before changing anything though. |
From my side, I wouldn't worry too much about the total diff of the PR as long as the commits stay clean and logical. IIRC you're one to take this serious @LuigiPiucco, so I have no concerns :) To give a few short comments on the approach:
To be completely honest, I am still on the edge about this build-time approach. I do see the benefits but I also think there is a good reason why most other embedded Rust platforms have opted to publish pre-generated crates as we currently do. That said, I am not opposed to going this route. Mainly because the current setup is very much hitting its limits. We'll be forced to split The biggest fear I have is build-time. For downstream users, I assume the change to be neglible because they will only incur the additional time on first build. But where it will really hurt is in CI environments like the one That's my two cents on the topic, I am very sorry it took this much time for me to get back to you. In any case, this is impressive work, thanks a lot for working on this and demonstrating that build-time codegen isn't as unrealistic as I had imagined so far! |
A few more comments:
I am strongly against using executables here. The current way of interfacing via the tools as pure-rust dependencies is what we need to be doing.
rustfmt is an optional toolchain component, we cannot rely on it being available. We have to decide between
|
I started experimenting with a parallel implementation today and (like you) ran into some accidental complexity patching the svd file. I created svdtools #265 which, if implemented, could simplify our implementation by not having to re-write the top level patch files in a temp directory. I'm still pretty new to SVD patching, but I think it should be doable. |
I revisited the cortex-m-rt crate, and it has more than just the the macro to implement its interrupts. This was indeed an oversight on my part. Their approach is that the macro doesn't convert the names to libc's The issue with the module is that it needs to be present when the macros compile, and they compile before anything is generated by About the other comments, I'll reply later, I already spent quite a while trying to find an alternative to the above and it's getting late. |
Custom linker scripts will be a part of tackling #76, I don't think we should separate these two. The linker scripts need to be synchronized with the libc runtime, I'd fear breaking things if we just blindly substitute them. I agree that generating the vectors from build.rs is tricky... The only idea I have left is generating a hidden macro in the main quote!(
#(#cfgs)*
#(#attrs)*
- #[allow(static_mut_refs)]
- #[doc(hidden)]
- #[export_name = #ident_s]
- pub unsafe extern "avr-interrupt" fn #tramp_ident() {
- #ident(
- #(#resource_args),*
- )
- }
+ avr_device::__avr_interrupt_trampoline!{
+ #ident_s, #ident, #(#resource_args),*
+ }
#[doc(hidden)]
#f
) |
That does work, nice catch! I'll push my implementation after I clean it up, but I confirmed the ELF for the example includes a defined
I don't think 2 can work due to rust-lang/rustfmt#5955. 1 seems reasonable, and another option is prettyplease, which seems even better than rustfmt for our use-case. The only issue I can see is that svd2rust only outputs a string, so we'd have to parse it with
In my quick testing, building with |
Neat, prettyplease looks perfect for what we are doing here. Would be my favorite, then :) |
About updating svd2rust, I need at least this commit, which is already version 0.31.3 (the option got renamed before publishing, it's actually |
The first commit in the series (dd32b3b) generates an error for me. My tool versions match what's specified in the readme.
Update: |
I had forgotten to update the README requirements, and there was a change that sneaked into a later commit while rebasing. Now it should work, though I haven't thoroughly tested building in between each commit. Edit: I also forgot to push the changes. I will investigate the missing elements in the SVD as well. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, managed to dig through all the changes in this PR now. Please check my comments below, there are a few topics I'd still like to discuss.
Thank you so much for all your efforts here, I really like how it is coming together now.
I'm in the process of stripping the PR to the bare minimum, but I've met some issues with versioning.
@Rahix How do you prefer to proceed? If we keep the old version of svd2rust, prettyplease cannot be used to format the code, and we lock our users into also using old versions of proc-macro2 (plus I think also an old compiler). If we update it, it's likely we'll have to update the compiler, plus use the field/method changes and most liked the casing changes as well. Preventing panics in the build script is also only possible if we update de compiler. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
5625d8e
to
82c67e2
Compare
Sorry, I forgot the |
@Rahix I'm working on refactoring the error handling of this PR, would you prefer I amend it here once finished, or that I open a separate one after merge? It should be ready by tomorrow at most. |
Amend it here :) |
The build script grew a bit, but now the error messages are better in my opinion, we stop generation immediately on error (before it would got through and fail after due to the messages) and it seems easier to extend for other purposes later, like linker script generation. |
Just pushed a fix to the CI issue, and some minor improvements as well. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very nice, thanks a lot!!
I will run a lot more tests myself in the coming days to ensure everything is ready to ship this new approach. If anything comes up, I will let you know. I do have two things that I stumbled over during review, please see below.
This replaces the AoT processing we did to generate the Rust modules locally. It generates them on the fly at build-time, and only for the selected MCUs. The process is mostly the same, just automated, with the addition of what is described in the next paragraph. Some things became unnecessary though, such as the `modrs.patch` and `Makefile`, and therefore were removed. `form` is no longer run, in order to minimize the number of files and directories. The patches were updated to not have the `_svd` key, since that's now handled by the build script. Those that ended up empty were removed. It also updates our `interrupt` macro, adapting it from a newer iteration of `cortex-m-rt`'s and adding logic to make the vector module unnecessary. It would be hard to generate it correctly for the macros crate, since it compiles before the main one where the build logic is hosted. Instead, we generate a macro `__avr_device_trampoline` in the main crate, and `#[interrupt(chip)]` calls into that giving the MCU name, interrupt name and trampoline item to define. This new macro converts the interrupt's name into a `__vector_N` symbol, which the linker understands as being an interrupt, and changes the function's name to it with `#[export_name = "..."]`. CI code was updated as well. Co-authored-by: Rahix <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: tones111 <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, very very nice. I know it has been a slow process getting here, but thanks so much for sticking through it and keeping up the amazing work. I do appreciate your attention to detail, this feature has come along so well. Remember, I was very sceptical in the beginning, whether this will work well at all.
I am going to merge this PR as it stands, as it is ready for use in my eyes. I do have a few things I want to see done before we release this new version of avr-device
, but I think it is better to take care of them afterwards. This allows unblocking other PRs and also helps getting the code out for others to test.
Oh, one more thing: I didn't update the README "Internals" section with the new function names. I guess the links can be just removed though, as they are probably only a burden. |
@LuigiPiucco heads-up on #187 which is a follow-up topic for this PR |
Although from the titles alone it may seem unrelated to the issue, the original goal was to fix #59. The approach taken, as suggested in that thread, is to generate the Peripheral Access Modules (PAMs) after the user has downloaded the package, in an automated fashion. So, instead of shipping the modules generated "by hand" (with semi-automation actually, but still), we ship the ATDF sources from which they are generated. When running build either in the crate root or as a dependency, the
build.rs
script outputs a module for the selected MCU into a known path. The generation steps are described in the README.The result of this is that the packaged
.crate
file does become much smaller, just short of 5 times (4.875...). Compilation time increases, of course, in particular as a fault of the build script. This could be improved by using the executable versions of svd2rust, svdtools and atdf2svd, but that would greatly reduce reproducibility.rustfmt is used via the executable, since it does not provide a library API, but in that case it should be fine, since anyone with a toolchain capable of compiling to AVR probably also has access to rustfmt.We now use prettyplease, which does have library functionality.
The commit changing the example from a crate to an actual Cargo example, while technically not necessary, makes testing the use of the crate as a dependency more convenient.This has been removed.
For a reference of crate size, see #59 (comment).