abi-cafe 🧩☕️❤️

Not sure if your compilers have matching ABIs? Then put them through the ultimate compatibility crucible and pair them up on a shift at The ABI Café! Find out if your one true pairing fastcalls for each other or are just another slowburn disaster. (Maid outfits optional but recommended.)

About

Run --help to get options for configuring execution.

This tool helps automate testing that two languages/compilers agree on ABIs for the purposes of FFI. This is still in early development so lots of stuff is stubbed out.

The principle of the tool is as follows:

Define a function signature that one impl should call the other with
Generate (or handwrite) both impls' versions (of both sides) of the interface
Have each side report what it thinks the values are with global callbacks
Compile both sides as static libs, and link into a dynamic lib harness
Load that dynamic lib in, pass in the callbacks, and run it
Check that both sides reported the same values

By running this natively on whatever platform you care about, this will tell you what FFI interfaces do and don't currently work. Ideally all you need to do is cargo run, but we're dealing with native toolchains so, expect toolchain bugs!

By default we will:

run all tests
under every possible calling convention
for a selection of reasonable "impl calls impl" pairings (e.g. rustc_calls_cc)

But you can the CLI interface lets you override these defaults. This is especially useful for --pairs because it lets you access more specific pairings, like if you really want to specifically test gcc_calls_clang.

Supported Features

Here are the current things that work.

Implementations

"ABI Implementations" refer to a specific compiler or language which claims to implement some ABIs. The currently supported AbiImpls are:

rustc - uses the rustc on your PATH
cc - gets the "system" C compiler via the CC crate (supports msvc on windows)
gcc - explicitly run the gcc on your PATH (probably less reliable than cc)
clang - explicitly run the clang on your PATH (probably less reliable than cc)
~~msvc~~ (unimplemented)

By default, we test the following pairings:

rustc_calls_cc
cc_calls_rustc
cc_calls_cc

In theory other implementations aren't too bad to add. You just need to:

Add an implementation of abis::AbiImpl
- Specify the name, language, and source-file extension
- Specify supported calling conventions
- Specify how to generate a caller from a signature
- Specify how to generate a callee from a signature
- Specify how to compile a source file to a static lib
Register it in the abi_impls map in fn main
(Optional) Register what you want it paired with by default in DEFAULT_TEST_PAIRS
- i.e. (ABI_IMPL_YOU, ABI_IMPL_CC) will have the harness test you calling into C

See the Test Harness section below for details on how to use it.

Calling Conventions

Each language may claim to support a particular set of calling conventions (and may use knowledge of the target platform to adjust their decisions). We try to generate and test all supported conventions.

Universal Conventions:

handwritten: run handwritten code (opaque to the framework, lets you do whatever)
c: the platform's default C convention (extern "C")

Windows Conventions:

cdecl
fastcall
stdcall
~~vectorcall~~ (code is there, but disabled due to linking issues)

Any test which specifies the "All" will implicitly combinatorically generate every known convention. "Nonsensical" situations like stdcall on linux are the responsibility of the AbiImpls to identify and disable.

Types

The test format support for the following types/concepts:

fixed-width integer types (uint8_t and friends)
float/double
bool
structs
opaque pointers (void*)
pass-by-ref (still checks the pointee's layout, and not the address)
arrays (including multi-dimensional arrays, although C often requires arrays to be wrapped in pass-by-ref)

Adding Tests

Tests are specified as ron files in the test/ directory, because it's more compact than JSON, has comments, and is more reliable with large integers. Because C is in some sense the "lingua franca" of FFI that everyone has to deal with, we prefer using C types in these definitions.

You don't need to register the test anywhere, we will just try to parse every file in that directory.

The "default" workflow is to handwrite a ron file, and the testing framework will handle generating the actual code implementating that interface (example: structs.ron). Generated impls will be output to the generated_impls dir for debugging. Build artifacts will get dumped in target/temp/ if you want to debug those too.

Example:

Test(
    // name of this set of tests
    name: "examples",  
    // generate tests for the following function signatures
    funcs: [
        (
            // base function/subtest name (but also subtest name)
            name: "some_prims",
            // what calling conventions to generate this test for
            // (All = do them all, a good default)
            conventions: [All],
            // args
            inputs: [
               Int(c_int32_t(5)),
               Int(c_uint64_t(0x123_abc)),
            ]
            // return value
            output: Some(Bool(true)),
        ),
        (
            name: "some_structs",
            conventions: [All],
            inputs: [
               Int(c_int32_t(5)),
               // Struct decls are implicit in usage.
               // All structs with the same name must match!
               Struct("MyStruct", [
                  Int(c_uint8_t(0xf1)), 
                  Float(c_double(1234.23)),
               ]), 
               Struct("MyStruct", [
                  Int(c_uint8_t(0x1)), 
                  Float(c_double(0.23)),
               ]),
            ],
            // no return (void)
            output: None,
        ),
    ]
)

However, you have two "power user" options available:

Generate the ron itself with generate_procedural_tests in main.rs (example: ui128.ron). This is good for bruteforcing a bunch of different combinations if you just want to make sure a type/feature generally works in many different situations.
Use the "Handwritten" convention and manually provide the implementations (example: opaque_example.ron). This lets you basically do anything without the testing framework having to understand your calling convention or type/feature. Manual impls go in handwritten_impls and use the same naming/structure as generated_impls.

The Test Harness

Implementation details of dylib test harness are split up between main.rs and the contents of the top-level harness/ directory. The contents of harness/ include:

"headers" for the testing framework for each language
harness.rs, which defines the entry-point for the test and sets up all the global callbacks/pointers. This is linked with the callee and caller to create the final dylib.

Ideally you shouldn't have to worry about how the callbacks work, so I'll just focus on the idea/usage. To begin with, here is an example of using this interface:

// Caller Side
uint64_t basic_val(struct MyStruct arg0, int32_t arg1);

// The test harness will invoke your test through this symbol!
void do_test(void) {
    // Initialize and report the inputs
    struct MyStruct arg0 = { 241, 1234.23 };
    WRITE(CALLER_INPUTS, (char*)&arg0.field0, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg0.field0));
    WRITE(CALLER_INPUTS, (char*)&arg0.field1, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg0.field1));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLER_INPUTS);
    
    int32_t arg1 = 5;
    WRITE(CALLER_INPUTS, (char*)&arg1, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg1));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLER_INPUTS);

    // Do the call
    uint64_t output = basic_val(arg0, arg1);

    // Report the output
    WRITE(CALLER_OUTPUTS, (char*)&output, (uint32_t)sizeof(output));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLER_OUTPUTS);

    // Declare that the test is complete on our side
    FINISHED_FUNC(CALLER_INPUTS, CALLER_OUTPUTS);
}

// Callee Side
uint64_t basic_val(struct MyStruct arg0, int32_t arg1) {
    // Report the inputs
    WRITE(CALLEE_INPUTS, (char*)&arg0.field0, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg0.field0));
    WRITE(CALLEE_INPUTS, (char*)&arg0.field1, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg0.field1));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLEE_INPUTS);
    
    WRITE(CALLEE_INPUTS, (char*)&arg1, (uint32_t)sizeof(arg1));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLEE_INPUTS);

    // Initialize and report the output
    uint64_t output = 17;
    WRITE(CALLEE_OUTPUTS, (char*)&output, (uint32_t)sizeof(output));
    FINISHED_VAL(CALLEE_OUTPUTS);

    // Declare that the test is complete on our side
    FINISHED_FUNC(CALLEE_INPUTS, CALLEE_OUTPUTS);

    // Actually return
    return output;
}

The high level idea is that each side:

Uses WRITE to report individual fields of values (to avoid padding)
Uses FINISHED_VAL to specify that all fields for a value have been written
Uses FINISHED_FUNC to specify that the current function is done (the caller will usually contain many subtests, FINISHED_FUNC delimits those)

There are 4 buffers: CALLER_INPUTS, CALLER_OUTPUTS, CALLEE_INPUTS, CALLEE_OUTPUTS. Each side should only use its two buffers.

The signatures of the callbacks are:

WRITE(Buffer buffer, char* input, uint32_t size_of_input)
FINISH_VAL(Buffer buffer)
FINISH_TEST(Buffer input_buffer, Buffer output_buffer)

Doing things in this very explicit way gives the test harness a better semantic understanding of what the implementations think is happening. This helps us emit better diagnostics and avoid cascading failures between subtests.

Trophy Case

x64 linux clang and gcc disagree on __int128 pass-on-stack ABI
- We already knew clang and rustc disagreed because clang does a manual alignment adjustment, but we didn't seem to fully understand that the clang adjustment is actually buggy and doesn't apply to the implicit push-to-stack when passing __int128 by-val. gcc always aligns the value, even when pushing to stack, so the two desync in this case.
- This tool was written to investigate the clang-rustc issue, and helped establish that everyone agreed on the ABI on ARM64, where __int128 is essentially part of the hardware's ABI due to it showing up in the layout for saving/restoring SIMD register state. As a result, rust's libc crate now exposes typedefs for __int128 on those platforms
rustc_codegen_cranelift ICE on passing 11 bools by-val

Gankra/abi-cafe

Gankra

Reviews

Repository Details