-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.1k
gh-139922: Tail calling for MSVC (VS 2026) #139962
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
gh-139922: Tail calling for MSVC (VS 2026) #139962
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Brandt Bucher <brandt@python.org>
Co-Authored-By: Hulon Jenkins <109993038+hulonjenkins@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Eibl <138194463+chris-eibl@users.noreply.github.com>
…ython into msvc-tailcall-take-two
…ython into msvc-tailcall-take-two
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 neat, looks good to me, but don't let me be the final reviewer on this.
#endif | ||
|
||
/* How much scratch space to give stackref to PyObject* conversion. */ | ||
#define MAX_STACKREF_SCRATCH 1024 |
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.
How arbitrary is this amount? What is the usual amount of space required for conversions?
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.
We used to arbitrarily always consume 10 PyObject/PyStackRef per call. Meaning even if you had a single item, the whole 10 slot space would be used.
Python/bytecodes.c
Outdated
inst(LOAD_BUILD_CLASS, ( -- bc)) { | ||
PyObject *bc_o; | ||
int err = PyMapping_GetOptionalItem(BUILTINS(), &_Py_ID(__build_class__), &bc_o); | ||
PyObject *Py_MSVC_RESTRICT bc_o; |
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.
I wonder if there's a more semantically meaningful name than Py_MSVC_RESTRICT
here? "Unaliased" or "no escape"?
And possibly define it as a macro like #define UNALIASED(x) x Py_MSVC_RESTRICT
to get UNALIASED(PyObject *) bc_o
?
Just looking to reduce the sense of "oh I have to go look up this MSVC thing to know what's going on here" when reading the code. There may be other ways.
Python/bytecodes.c
Outdated
int *Py_MSVC_RESTRICT method_found_ptr = &method_found; | ||
attr_o = _PySuper_Lookup(cls, self, name, | ||
Py_TYPE(self)->tp_getattro == PyObject_GenericGetAttr ? method_found_ptr : NULL); |
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.
Indent? Like in other places
Python/bytecodes.c
Outdated
PyObject *stack[] = {class, self}; | ||
PyObject *super = PyObject_Vectorcall(global_super, stack, oparg & 2, NULL); | ||
PyObject *super; | ||
Py_BEGIN_LOCALS_MUST_NOT_ESCAPE(); |
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.
We usually don't require parentheses on macros like this, especially when they define a scope.
<ClCompile Include="..\Python\brc.c" /> | ||
<ClCompile Include="..\Python\ceval.c" /> | ||
<ClCompile Include="..\Python\ceval.c"> | ||
<AdditionalOptions Condition="'$(UseTailCallInterp)' == 'true' and $(PlatformToolset) != 'ClangCL'">/std:clatest %(AdditionalOptions)</AdditionalOptions> |
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.
What happens if we pass this option to clang-cl? Does it break?
Any possibility of passing a specific /std:c rather than "latest"?
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.
So I've worked with Chris on this and apparently it builds with clang-cl still the last time I checked with him? @chris-eibl
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.
What happens if we pass this option to clang-cl? Does it break?
Yupp, clang-cl doesn't like /std:clatest
, hence I omitted it, because it doesn't need it.
Seems the clang-cl versions we are using (>=19)
- support by default at least C99 (which
iswould be needed forrestrict
) - and support must tail, etc, in the "clang specific notation"
But I assume MSVC needs /std:clatest
for [[msvc::musttail]]
- @Fidget-Spinner correct?
And at least MSVC definitely needs at least /std:c11
for restrict (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/std-specify-language-standard-version?view=msvc-170).
Any possibility of passing a specific /std:c rather than "latest"?
Yeah, we could explicitely enforce /std:c11
for clang-cl, but we didn't need it in the past and AFAICT this PR didn't change anything that clang-cl sees, due to carefully crafted combinations of _MSC_VER
and __clang__
like
#if defined(_MSC_VER) && !defined(__clang__)
and apparently it builds with clang-cl still the last time I checked with him?
Yes, it still does. Having done a lot of builds recently and still playing around.
And tail calling CI is green as well: https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/18435075900/job/52527447202
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.
I'm under the impression we need clatest for msvc musttail as well.
Co-Authored-By: Chris Eibl <138194463+chris-eibl@users.noreply.github.com>
…inner/cpython into msvc-tailcall-take-two
# define Py_NO_INLINE_MSVC_TAILCALL | ||
#endif | ||
|
||
// Tells the compiler that this variable cannot be alised. |
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.
Grammar nit, but "cannot be aliased" is ambiguous (because it's not clear whether we are choosing not to alias it, or telling the compiler that it cannot choose to alias it).
I think we're promising that it won't be aliased? So "Tells the compiler to trust that we haven't aliased this variable" better explains what it's doing. Or just "... this variable is not going to be aliased".
Alternatively, "Tells the compiler not to alias the variable" (but I don't think that even makes sense, let alone being correct here).
PyObject *attr_o; | ||
Py_BEGIN_LOCALS_MUST_NOT_ESCAPE; |
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.
Another crazy idea, based on seeing how this is used (feel free to ignore unless you really like it):
Py_BEGIN_RESTRICTED_PYOBJECT_SCOPE(attr_o);
...
attr_o = ...
...
Py_END_RESTRICTED_PYOBJECT_SCOPE;
It seems like it only gets used in the same pattern, and this makes it really clear what it's for (at the expense of overly limiting how it could be used).
But it's all generated code, so not a big deal.
Indeed not. Can we move all the |
// we make no attempt to optimize here; specializations should | ||
// handle any case whose performance we care about | ||
PyObject *super; | ||
Py_BEGIN_LOCALS_MUST_NOT_ESCAPE; |
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.
Py_BEGIN_LOCALS_MUST_NOT_ESCAPE; | |
{ // 'stack' array must not escape |
Fair. This PR will be just fixing the stackref buffer then. |
#define SPECIAL_MAX 3 | ||
|
||
// Special counterparts of ceval functions for performance reasons | ||
PyAPI_FUNC(int) _PyEval_Mapping_GetOptionalItem(PyObject *obj, PyObject *key, PyObject **result); |
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.
Is the only difference the restrict annotation?
We could just add the annotation to PyMapping_GetOptionalItem
the result
pointer can never alias the other parameters.
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.
Yes. We can't because PyMapping_GetOptionalItem
is part of the public API, and we can't change the signature of it.
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.
We aren't changing the signature, just telling the compiler than one of its parameters can't alias the others.
I'm surprised we need to do this anyway. I would have thought that strict aliasing already tells MSVC that they can't alias.
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.
My understanding is, that strict aliasing can't help here, since in
PyMapping_GetOptionalItem(PyObject *obj, PyObject *key, PyObject **result)
all parameters are of type PyObject
. And by using restrict
we tell the compiler that "we assure you, that none of these PyObject
s point to the same memory", and if we brake that contract, UB kicks in.
What is necessary for tail calling? IIUC, the restict annotations and the tighter scoping around arrays in the interpreter are necessary, but moving the temporary arrays from the C stack to the threadstate are not. Is that correct? |
No this is needed too. The problem is that the temporary arrays from the C stack are local variables. These variables are passed around in ways that are unpredictable to MSVC (such as passing to an arbitrary vectorcall function pointer). So we have to move this to thread state to get tail calling. There are other side benefits and I've wanted to do this for awhile, so I thought might as well put this in this PR. Do you still want to split up the restrict stuff knowing that we need both to get TC on MSVC? |
I know it isn't good practice to bundle multiple changes into the same PR, but this PR does two things which are required to get tail calling working on MSVC and which I think are beneficial.
__restrict
to correct places and scoping where needed to tell MSVC that a local variable does not outlive the scope. We only use this for MSVC for now as other compilers have different qualifier rules. However, it's definitely possible to extend this to clang and gcc to let them benefit in the future.There is no noticeable perf drop on a nogil benchmark for the normal interpreter https://github.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/tree/main/results/bm-20251011-3.15.0a0-0786133-NOGIL