| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
LLVM continues to clean these up, and we continue to make this
consistent. This is similar to 9caced7badc337ced7ad89eb614621c39bd996e9
and e9853961452b56997cc127b51308879b9cd09482.
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
|
|
|
|
FreeBSD is not a GNU system
|
|
LLVM changed the data layout in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112084
|
|
Remove the `wasm32-wasi` target from rustc
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical `wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of `wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of `wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
|
|
It is unused.
|
|
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical
`wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various
steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is
summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of
`wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have
already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of
`wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before
the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the
source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical
reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
|
|
This changes the naming to the new naming, used by `--print
target-tuple`.
It does not change all locations, but many.
|
|
Move versioned Apple LLVM targets from `rustc_target` to `rustc_codegen_ssa`
Fully specified LLVM targets contain the OS version on macOS/iOS/tvOS/watchOS/visionOS, and this version depends on the deployment target environment variables like `MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET`, `IPHONEOS_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET` etc.
We would like to move this to later in the compilation pipeline, both because it feels impure to access environment variables when fetching target information, but mostly because we need access to more information from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130883 to do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118204. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129342#issuecomment-2335156119 for some discussion.
The first and second commit does the actual refactor, it should be a non-functional change, the third commit adds diagnostics for invalid deployment targets, which are now possible to do because we have access to the session.
Tested with the same commands as in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130435.
r? ``````@petrochenkov``````
|
|
To align with the general decision to have this sort of information
there instead.
Also use the visionOS values added in newer `object` release.
|
|
The OS version depends on the deployment target environment variables,
the access of which we want to move to later in the compilation pipeline
that has access to more information, for example `env_depinfo`.
|
|
llvm: Match new LLVM 128-bit integer alignment on sparc
LLVM continues to align more 128-bit integers to 128-bits in the data layout rather than relying on the high level language to do it. Update SPARC target files to match and add a backcompat replacement for current LLVMs.
See llvm/llvm-project#106951 for details
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
r? `@durin42`
(Please wait for the LLVM CI to come back before approving), creating this PR to get it tested there.
|
|
r=jieyouxu,compiler-errors
compiler: Move `rustc_target::spec::abi::Abi` to `rustc_abi::ExternAbi`
Lift `enum Abi` from its rather odd place in the middle of rustc_target, and make it available again from rustc_abi. You know, the crate where you would expect the enum that describes all the ABIs to be? The platform-neutral ones, at least. This will help further refactoring of how we handle ABIs in the near future[^0].
Rename `Abi` to `ExternAbi` because quite a lot of the compiler overloads the concept of "ABI" enough that the existing name is imprecise and it is often renamed _anyway_. Often this was to avoid conflicts with the *other* type formerly known as `Abi` (now named BackendRepr[^1]), but sometimes it is just for clarity, and this name seems more self-explanatory. It does get reexported, though, using its old name, to reduce the odds of merge-conflicting over the entire tree.
All of `ExternAbi`'s friends come along for the ride, which costs adding some optional dependencies to the rustc_abi crate. However, all of this also allows simply moving three crates entirely off rustc_target:
- rustc_hir_pretty
- rustc_lint_defs
- rustc_mir_build
This odd selection is mostly to demonstrate a secondary motivation: The majority of the front-end of the compiler should be as target-agnostic as possible, and it is easier to assure this if they simply don't depend on the crate that describes targets. Note that I didn't migrate crates that don't benefit from it in this way yet, and I didn't survey every last crate.
[^0]: This is being undertaken as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119183
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132246
|
|
Fix `target_os` for `mipsel-sony-psx`
Previously set to `target_os = "none"` and `target_env = "psx"` in [the PR introducing the target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102689/), but although the Playstation 1 is _close_ to a bare metal target in some regards, it's still very much an operating system, so we should instead set `target_os = "psx"`.
This also matches the `mipsel-sony-psp` target, which sets `target_os = "psp"`.
CC target maintainer ``@ayrtonm.``
If there's any code out there that uses `cfg(target_env = "psx")`, they can use `cfg(any(target_os = "psx", target_env = "psx"))` until they bump their MSRV to a version where this is fully fixed.
|
|
LLVM continues to align more 128-bit integers to 128-bits in the data
layout rather than relying on the high level language to do it. Update
SPARC target files to match and add a backcompat replacement for current
LLVMs.
See llvm/llvm-project#106951 for details
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix `target_vendor` in QNX Neutrino targets
The `x86_64-pc-nto-qnx710` and `i586-pc-nto-qnx700` targets have `pc` in their target triple names, but the vendor was set to the default `"unknown"`.
CC target maintainers `@flba-eb,` `@gh-tr,` `@jonathanpallant` and `@japaric`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f25e5abea229a6b6aa77b45e21cb784e785c6040/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl#L297-L301)), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
|
|
"activating" it)
|
|
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130432 (rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972))
- #131697 (`rt::Argument`: elide lifetimes)
- #131807 (Always specify `llvm_abiname` for RISC-V targets)
- #131954 (shave 150ms off bootstrap)
- #132015 (Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`)
- #132017 (Update triagebot.toml)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Always specify `llvm_abiname` for RISC-V targets
For RISC-V targets, when `llvm_abiname` is not specified LLVM will infer the ABI from the target features, causing #116344 to occur. This PR adds the correct `llvm_abiname` to all RISC-V targets where it is missing (which are all soft-float targets), and adds a test to prevent future RISC-V targets from accidentally omitting `llvm_abiname`. The only affect of this PR is that `-Ctarget-feature=+f` (or similar) will no longer affect the ABI on the modified targets.
<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
r? `@RalfJung`
<!--- homu-ignore:end -->
|
|
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
|
|
|
|
compiler: Use LLVM's Comdat support
Acting on these long-ago issues:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46437
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/68955
|
|
Migrate `llvm::set_comdat` and `llvm::SetUniqueComdat` to LLVM-C FFI.
Note, now we can call `llvm::set_comdat` only when the target actually
supports adding comdat. As this has no convenient LLVM-C API, we
implement this as `TargetOptions::supports_comdat`.
Co-authored-by: Stuart Cook <Zalathar@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
The context for this is #130266: setting the medium code model for the
'loongarch64-linux-ohos' target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Setting up indirect access to external data for loongarch64-linux-{musl,ohos}
In issue #118053, the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu` target needs indirection to access external data, and so do the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-musl` and `loongarch64-unknown-linux-ohos` targets.
|
|
|
|
LLVM has added 3 new address spaces to support special Windows use
cases. These shouldn't trouble us for now, but LLVM requires matching
data layouts.
See llvm/llvm-project#111879 for details
|
|
In issue #118053, the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu` target needs indirection
to access external data, and so do the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-musl` and
`loongarch64-unknown-linux-ohos` targets.
|
|
Enable sanitizers for loongarch64-unknown-*
Enable sanitizers for `loongarch64-unknown-linux-{gnu,musl,ohos}` targets.
|
|
Fix `target_vendor` in non-IDF Xtensa ESP32 targets
`rustc`'s Xtensa ESP32 targets are the following:
- `xtensa-esp32-none-elf`
- `xtensa-esp32-espidf`
- `xtensa-esp32s2-none-elf`
- `xtensa-esp32s2-espidf`
- `xtensa-esp32s3-none-elf`
- `xtensa-esp32s3-espidf`
The ESP-IDF targets already set `target_vendor="espressif"`, however, the ESP32 is, from my understanding, produced by Espressif regardless of whether using the IDF or not, so we should set the target vendor there as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Based on riscv32{i|im|imc}
- Set data_layout stack alignment: S32 (bits)
- Set llvm_abiname = ilp32e
|
|
Fix `target_abi` in `sparc-unknown-none-elf`
This was previously set to `target_abi = "elf"`, but `elf` is not used elsewhere as a target ABI (even though there's many targets that have it in their name), so I've removed it.
CC target maintainer ``@jonathanpallant,`` what do you think about this?
``@rustbot`` label O-SPARC
|
|
Fix `target_env` in `avr-unknown-gnu-atmega328`
The target name itself contains GNU, we should probably reflect that as `target_env = "gnu"` as well? Or from my reading of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74941#issuecomment-712219034, perhaps not, but then that should probably be documented somewhere?
There's no listed target maintainer, but the target was introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74941, so I'll ping the author of that: `@dylanmckay`
Relatedly, I wonder _why_ the recommendation is to [create separate target triples for each AVR](https://github.com/Rahix/avr-hal/tree/main/avr-specs), when `-Ctarget-cpu=...` would suffice, perhaps you could also elaborate on that? Was it just because `-Ctarget-cpu=...` didn't exist back then? If so, now that it does, should we now change the target back to e.g. `avr-unknown-none-gnu`, and require the user to set `-Ctarget-cpu=...` instead?
|
|
Add x86_64-unknown-trusty as tier 3 target
This PR adds a third target for the Trusty platform, `x86_64-unknown-trusty`.
Please let me know if an MCP is required. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/582 was made when adding the first two targets, I can make another one for the new target as well if needed.
# Target Tier Policy Acknowledgements
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
- Nicole LeGare (```@randomPoison)```
- Andrei Homescu (```@ahomescu)```
- Chris Wailes (chriswailes@google.com)
- As a fallback trusty-dev-team@google.com can be contacted
Note that this does not reflect the maintainers currently listed in [`trusty.md`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c52c23b6f44cd19718721a5e3b2eeb169e9c96ff/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/trusty.md). #130452 is currently open to update the list of maintainers in the documentation.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
The new target `x86_64-unknown-trusty` follows the existing naming convention for similar targets.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
👍
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
There are no known legal issues or license incompatibilities.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
👍
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This PR only adds the target. `std` support is being worked on and will be added in a future PR.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
👍
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via ```@)``` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
👍
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
👍
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
👍
|
|
This was previously set to `target_abi = "elf"`, but `elf` is not used
elsewhere as a target ABI (even though there's many targets that have it
in their name).
|
|
Co-authored-by: Kleis Auke Wolthuizen <github@kleisauke.nl>
|
|
|
|
Fix `target_abi` in SOLID targets
The `armv7a-kmc-solid_asp3-eabi` and `armv7a-kmc-solid_asp3-eabihf` targets clearly have the ABI in their name, so it should also be exposed in Rust's `target_abi` cfg variable.
CC target maintainer `@kawadakk.`
|
