| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This reverts commit 5af56cac38fa48e4228e5e123d060e85eb1acbf7.
|
|
Emit future-incompatibility lint when calling/declaring functions with vectors that require missing target feature
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.)
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it a post-monomorphization error to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI.
See the [nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127731#issuecomment-2288558187) for more discussion.
r? RalfJung
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558
|
|
|
|
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI when
relevant target features are enabled.
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this
turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it an error to declare or call functions using those
vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are
disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant.
|
|
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`
|
|
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130991 (Vectorized SliceContains)
- #131928 (rustdoc: Document `markdown` module.)
- #131955 (Set `signext` or `zeroext` for integer arguments on RISC-V and LoongArch64)
- #131979 (Minor tweaks to `compare_impl_item.rs`)
- #132036 (Add a test case for #131164)
- #132039 (Specialize `read_exact` and `read_buf_exact` for `VecDeque`)
- #132060 ("innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens)
- #132065 (Clarify documentation of `ptr::dangling()` function)
- #132066 (Fix a typo in documentation of `pointer::sub_ptr()`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Add the pauth-lr target feature, corresponding to aarch64 FEAT_PAuth_LR.
This feature has been added in LLVM 19.
It is currently not supported by the Linux hwcap and so we cannot add
runtime feature detection for it at this time.
|
|
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
|
|
Fix AArch64InlineAsmReg::emit
Currently, this method uses `self as u32 - Self::x0 as u32` to get register index:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/36780360b62320a61e2234b17ec600e8e4785509/compiler/rustc_target/src/asm/aarch64.rs#L204
However, this is incorrect for reasons explained in the following comment:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/36780360b62320a61e2234b17ec600e8e4785509/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/asm.rs#L544-L549
r? ``@Amanieu``
``@rustbot`` label O-AArch64 +A-inline-assembly
|
|
Fix clobber_abi and disallow SVE-related registers in Arm64EC inline assembly
Currently `clobber_abi` in Arm64EC inline assembly is implemented using `InlineAsmClobberAbi::AArch64NoX18`, but broken since it attempts to clobber registers that cannot be used in Arm64EC: https://godbolt.org/z/r3PTrGz5r
```
error: cannot use register `x13`: x13, x14, x23, x24, x28, v16-v31 cannot be used for Arm64EC
--> <source>:6:14
|
6 | asm!("", clobber_abi("C"), options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: cannot use register `x14`: x13, x14, x23, x24, x28, v16-v31 cannot be used for Arm64EC
--> <source>:6:14
|
6 | asm!("", clobber_abi("C"), options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<omitted the same errors for v16-v31>
```
Additionally, this disallows SVE-related registers per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131332#issuecomment-2401189142.
cc ``@dpaoliello``
r? ``@Amanieu``
``@rustbot`` label O-windows O-AArch64 +A-inline-assembly
|
|
compiler: `{TyAnd,}Layout` comes home
The `Layout` and `TyAndLayout` types are heavily abstract and have no particular target-specific qualities, though we do use them to answer questions particular to targets. We can keep it that way if we simply move them out of `rustc_target` and into `rustc_abi`. They bring a small entourage of connected types with them, but that's fine.
This will allow us to strengthen a few abstraction barriers over time and thus make the notoriously gnarly layout code easier to refactor. For now, we don't need to worry about that and deliberately use reexports to minimize this particular diff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Support clobber_abi in MSP430 inline assembly
This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.
Refs: Section 3.2 "Register Conventions" in [MSP430 Embedded Application Binary Interface](https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa534a/slaa534a.pdf)
cc ``@cr1901``
r? ``@Amanieu``
``@rustbot`` label +O-msp430
|
|
This finally unites TyAndLayout, Layout, and LayoutS into the same crate,
as one might imagine they would be placed. No functional changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABI: Pass aggregates by value on AIX
On AIX we pass aggregates byval. Adds new ABI for AIX for powerpc64.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/313ad85dfa40a18f2edefd7ce2edc0528d5a554a/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PPC.cpp#L216
Fixes the following 2 testcases on AIX:
```
tests/ui/abi/extern/extern-pass-TwoU16s.rs
tests/ui/abi/extern/extern-pass-TwoU8s.rs
```
|
|
LLVM 20 split out what used to be called b16b16 and correspond to aarch64
FEAT_SVE_B16B16 into sve-b16b16 and sme-b16b16.
Add sme-b16b16 as an explicit feature and update the codegen accordingly.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
