| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Support clobber_abi and vector registers (clobber-only) in PowerPC inline assembly
This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.
This basically does a similar thing I did in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630 to implement `clobber_abi` for s390x, but for powerpc/powerpc64/powerpc64le.
- This also supports vector registers (as `vreg`) as clobber-only, which need to support clobbering of them to implement `clobber_abi`.
- `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input/output if the unstable `altivec` target feature is enabled, but `core::arch::{powerpc,powerpc64}` vector types, `#[repr(simd)]`, and `core::simd` are all unstable, so the fact that this is currently a clobber-only should not be considered a blocker of clobber_abi implementation or stabilization. So I have not implemented it in this PR.
- See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131551 (which is based on this PR) for a PR to implement this.
- (I'm not sticking to whether that PR should be a separate PR or part of this PR, so I can merge that PR into this PR if needed.)
Refs:
- PPC32 SysV: Section "Function Calling Sequence" in [System V Application Binary Interface PowerPC Processor Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf)
- PPC64 ELFv1: Section 3.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-bit PowerPC ELF Application Binary Interface Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html#FUNC-CALL)
- PPC64 ELFv2: Section 2.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification](https://openpowerfoundation.org/specifications/64bitelfabi/)
- AIX: [Register usage and conventions](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-register-usage-conventions), [Special registers in the PowerPC®](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-special-registers-in-powerpc), [AIX vector programming](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=concepts-aix-vector-programming)
- Register definition in LLVM: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCRegisterInfo.td#L189
If I understand the above four ABI documentations correctly, except for the PPC32 SysV's VR (Vector Registers) and 32-bit AIX (currently not supported by rustc)'s r13, there does not appear to be important differences in terms of implementing `clobber_abi`:
- The above four ABIs are consistent about FPR (0-13: volatile, 14-31: nonvolatile), CR (0-1,5-7: volatile, 2-4: nonvolatile), XER (volatile), and CTR (volatile).
- As for GPR, only the registers we are treating as reserved are slightly different
- r0, r3-r12 are volatile
- r1(sp, reserved), r14-31 are nonvolatile
- r2(reserved) is TOC pointer in PPC64 ELF/AIX, system-reserved register in PPC32 SysV (AFAIK used as thread pointer in Linux/BSDs)
- r13(reserved for non-32-bit-AIX) is thread pointer in PPC64 ELF, small data area pointer register in PPC32 SysV, "reserved under 64-bit environment; not restored across system calls[^r13]" in AIX)
- As for FPSCR, volatile in PPC64 ELFv1/AIX, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv2.
- As for VR (Vector Registers), it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, v0-v19 are volatile in both in PPC64 ELF/AIX, v20-v31 are nonvolatile in PPC64 ELF, reserved or nonvolatile depending on the ABI ([vec-extabi vs vec-default in LLVM](https://reviews.llvm.org/D89684), we are [using vec-extabi](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1797693299)) in AIX:
> When the default Vector enabled mode is used, these registers are reserved and must not be used.
> In the extended ABI vector enabled mode, these registers are nonvolatile and their values are preserved across function calls
I left [FIXME comment about PPC32 SysV](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1790496095) and added ABI check for AIX.
- As for VRSAVE, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, nonvolatile in PPC64 ELFv1, reserved in PPC64 ELFv2/AIX
- As for VSCR, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv1, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC64 ELFv2, volatile in AIX
We are currently treating r1-r2, r13 (non-32-bit-AIX), r29-r31, LR, CTR, and VRSAVE as reserved.
We are currently not processing anything about FPSCR and VSCR, but I feel those are things that should be processed by `preserves_flags` rather than `clobber_abi` if we need to do something about them. (However, PPCRegisterInfo.td in LLVM does not seem to define anything about them.)
Replaces #111335 and #124279
cc `@ecnelises` `@bzEq` `@lu-zero`
r? `@Amanieu`
`@rustbot` label +O-PowerPC +A-inline-assembly
[^r13]: callee-saved, according to [LLVM](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/6a6af0246bd2d68291582e9aefc0543e5c6102fe/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCCallingConv.td#L322) and [GCC](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/a9173a50e7e346a218323916e4d3add8552529ae/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h#L859).
|
|
|
|
assembly
|
|
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
llvm: replace some deprecated functions
`LLVMMDStringInContext` and `LLVMMDNodeInContext` are deprecated, replace them with `LLVMMDStringInContext2` and `LLVMMDNodeInContext2`.
Also replace `Value` with `Metadata` in some function signatures for better consistency.
|
|
|
|
inline assembly
|
|
These can be made more concise, mostly through appropriate use of `use`
declarations.
|
|
|
|
Supertraits of `BuilderMethods` are all called `XyzBuilderMethods`.
Supertraits of `CodegenMethods` are all called `XyzMethods`. This commit
changes the latter to `XyzCodegenMethods`, for consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previous commit updated `rustfmt.toml` appropriately. This commit is
the outcome of running `x fmt --all` with the new formatting options.
|
|
Add `f16` inline ASM support for 32-bit ARM
Adds `f16` inline ASM support for 32-bit ARM. SIMD vector types are taken from [here](https://developer.arm.com/architectures/instruction-sets/intrinsics/#f:`@navigationhierarchiesreturnbasetype=[float]&f:@navigationhierarchieselementbitsize=[16]&f:@navigationhierarchiesarchitectures=[A32]).`
Relevant issue: #125398
Tracking issue: #116909
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We already use `Instance` at declaration sites when available to glean
additional information about possible abstractions of the type in use.
This does the same when possible at callsites as well.
The primary purpose of this change is to allow CFI to alter how it
generates type information for indirect calls through `Virtual`
instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use `unstable_target_features` when checking inline assembly
This is necessary to properly validate register classes even when the relevant target feature name is still unstable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is necessary to properly validate register classes even when the
relevant target feature name is still unstable.
|
|
Improve inline asm for LoongArch
This PR is a sub-part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111235, to improve inline asm for LoongArch.
r? `@Amanieu`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add cross-language LLVM CFI support to the Rust compiler
This PR adds cross-language LLVM Control Flow Integrity (CFI) support to the Rust compiler by adding the `-Zsanitizer-cfi-normalize-integers` option to be used with Clang `-fsanitize-cfi-icall-normalize-integers` for normalizing integer types (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D139395).
It provides forward-edge control flow protection for C or C++ and Rust -compiled code "mixed binaries" (i.e., for when C or C++ and Rust -compiled code share the same virtual address space). For more information about LLVM CFI and cross-language LLVM CFI support for the Rust compiler, see design document in the tracking issue #89653.
Cross-language LLVM CFI can be enabled with -Zsanitizer=cfi and -Zsanitizer-cfi-normalize-integers, and requires proper (i.e., non-rustc) LTO (i.e., -Clinker-plugin-lto).
Thank you again, ``@bjorn3,`` ``@nikic,`` ``@samitolvanen,`` and the Rust community for all the help!
|
|
This commit adds cross-language LLVM Control Flow Integrity (CFI)
support to the Rust compiler by adding the
`-Zsanitizer-cfi-normalize-integers` option to be used with Clang
`-fsanitize-cfi-icall-normalize-integers` for normalizing integer types
(see https://reviews.llvm.org/D139395).
It provides forward-edge control flow protection for C or C++ and Rust
-compiled code "mixed binaries" (i.e., for when C or C++ and Rust
-compiled code share the same virtual address space). For more
information about LLVM CFI and cross-language LLVM CFI support for the
Rust compiler, see design document in the tracking issue #89653.
Cross-language LLVM CFI can be enabled with -Zsanitizer=cfi and
-Zsanitizer-cfi-normalize-integers, and requires proper (i.e.,
non-rustc) LTO (i.e., -Clinker-plugin-lto).
|
|
|
|
|
|
LLVMRustMetadataTypeInContext with LLVMMetadataTypeInContext
|
|
...and remove it from `PointeeInfo`, which isn't meant for this.
There are still various places (marked with FIXMEs) that assume all pointers
have the same size and alignment. Fixing this requires parsing non-default
address spaces in the data layout string, which will be done in a followup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LLVM 16: Switch to using MemoryEffects
This adapts the compiler to the changes required by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/304f1d59ca41872c094def3aee0a8689df6aa398.
AFAICT, `WriteOnly` isn't used by the compiler, all `ReadNone` uses were migrated and the remaining use of `ReadOnly` is only for function parameters.
To simplify the FFI, this PR uses an enum to represent `MemoryEffects` across the FFI boundary, which then gets mapped to the matching static factory method when constructing the attribute.
Fixes #103961.
`@rustbot` label +llvm-main
r? `@nikic`
|
|
|
|
asm: Work around LLVM bug on AArch64
Upstream issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58384
LLVM gets confused if we assign a 32-bit value to a 64-bit register, so pass the 32-bit register name to LLVM in that case.
|
|
asm: Match clang behavior for inlateout fixed register operands
We have 2 options for representing LLVM constraints for `inlateout` operands on a fixed register (e.g. `r0`): `={r0},0` or `={r0},{r0}`.
This PR changes the behavior to the latter, which matches the behavior of Clang since https://reviews.llvm.org/D87279.
|
|
Upstream issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58384
LLVM gets confused if we assign a 32-bit value to a 64-bit register, so
pass the 32-bit register name to LLVM in that case.
|
|
We have 2 options for representing LLVM constraints for `inlateout`
operands on a fixed register (e.g. `r0`): `={r0},0` or `={r0},{r0}`.
This PR changes the behavior to the latter, which matches the behavior
of Clang since https://reviews.llvm.org/D87279.
|
