Rollup merge of #130630 - taiki-e:s390x-clobber-abi, r=Amanieu

Support clobber_abi and vector/access registers (clobber-only) in s390x inline assembly

This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.

This also supports vector registers (as `vreg`) and access registers (as `areg`) as clobber-only, which need to support clobbering of them to implement clobber_abi.

Refs:
- "1.2.1.1. Register Preservation Rules" section in ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement, Version 1.6.1 (lzsabi_s390x.pdf in https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/tag/v1.6.1)
- Register definition in LLVM:
  - Vector registers https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L249
  - Access registers https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L332

I have three questions:
- ~~ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement says that `cc` (condition code, bits 18-19 of PSW) is "Volatile".
  However, we do not have a register class for `cc` and instead mark `cc` as clobbered unless `preserves_flags` is specified (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111331).
  Therefore, in the current implementation, if both `preserves_flags` and `clobber_abi` are specified, `cc` is not marked as clobbered. Is this okay? Or even if `preserves_flags` is used, should `cc` be marked as clobbered if `clobber_abi` is used?~~ UPDATE: resolved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630#issuecomment-2367923121
- ~~ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement says that `pm` (program mask, bits 20-23 of PSW) is "Cleared".
  There does not appear to be any registers associated with this in either [LLVM](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td) or [GCC](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/33ccc1314dcdb0b988a9276ca6b6ce9b07bea21e/gcc/config/s390/s390.h#L407-L431), so at this point I don't see any way other than to just ignore it. Is this okay as-is?~~ UPDATE: resolved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630#issuecomment-2367923121
- Is "areg" a good name for register class name for access registers? It may be a bit confusing between that and `reg_addr`, which uses the “a” constraint (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119431)...

Note:

- GCC seems to [recognize only `a0` and `a1`](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/33ccc1314dcdb0b988a9276ca6b6ce9b07bea21e/gcc/config/s390/s390.h#L428-L429), and using `a[2-15]` [causes errors](https://godbolt.org/z/a46vx8jjn).
  Given that cg_gcc has a similar problem with other architecture (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_gcc/issues/485), I don't feel this is a blocker for this PR, but it is worth mentioning here.
- `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input if the `vector` target feature added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127506 is enabled, but core_arch has no s390x vector type and both `#[repr(simd)]` and `core::simd` are unstable, so I have not implemented it in this PR. EDIT: And supporting it is probably more complex than doing the equivalent on other architectures... https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88245#issuecomment-905559591

cc `@uweigand`

r? `@Amanieu`

`@rustbot` label +O-SystemZ

1 files changed, 50 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tests/codegen/asm-s390x-clobbers.rs b/tests/codegen/asm-s390x-clobbers.rs
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..45f72206bdf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/codegen/asm-s390x-clobbers.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+//@ revisions: s390x
+//@[s390x] compile-flags: --target s390x-unknown-linux-gnu
+//@[s390x] needs-llvm-components: systemz
+
+#![crate_type = "rlib"]
+#![feature(no_core, rustc_attrs, lang_items, asm_experimental_arch)]
+#![no_core]
+
+#[lang = "sized"]
+trait Sized {}
+
+#[rustc_builtin_macro]
+macro_rules! asm {
+    () => {};
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @cc_clobber
+// CHECK: call void asm sideeffect "", "~{cc}"()
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe fn cc_clobber() {
+    asm!("", options(nostack, nomem));
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @no_clobber
+// CHECK: call void asm sideeffect "", ""()
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe fn no_clobber() {
+    asm!("", options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @a2_clobber
+// CHECK: call void asm sideeffect "", "~{a2}"()
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe fn a2_clobber() {
+    asm!("", out("a2") _, options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @v0_clobber
+// CHECK: call void asm sideeffect "", "~{v0}"()
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe fn v0_clobber() {
+    asm!("", out("v0") _, options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @clobber_abi
+// CHECK: asm sideeffect "", "={r0},={r1},={r2},={r3},={r4},={r5},={r14},={f0},={f1},={f2},={f3},={f4},={f5},={f6},={f7},~{v0},~{v1},~{v2},~{v3},~{v4},~{v5},~{v6},~{v7},~{v8},~{v9},~{v10},~{v11},~{v12},~{v13},~{v14},~{v15},~{v16},~{v17},~{v18},~{v19},~{v20},~{v21},~{v22},~{v23},~{v24},~{v25},~{v26},~{v27},~{v28},~{v29},~{v30},~{v31},~{a2},~{a3},~{a4},~{a5},~{a6},~{a7},~{a8},~{a9},~{a10},~{a11},~{a12},~{a13},~{a14},~{a15}"()
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe fn clobber_abi() {
+    asm!("", clobber_abi("C"), options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
+}