| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
specifically
|
|
RustyHermit now maintains custom json targets, which are distributed with the kernel. [1]
[1]: https://github.com/hermitcore/libhermit-rs/pull/395
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: codehorseman <cricis@yeah.net>
|
|
Add riscv32im-unknown-none-elf built-in target triple.
* Add built-in target `riscv32im-unknown-none-elf`.
* Update `platform-support.md` to list it as a Tier 3 target.
Below are details on how this target meets the requirements for tier 3:
> 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.)
I would be willing to be a target maintainer, though I would appreciate if others with more experience around RISC-V volunteered to help with that as well.
> 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.
Uses the same naming as the LLVM target, and the same convention as many other bare-metal 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.
I don't believe there is any ambiguity here.
> 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.
I don't see any legal issues here.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
> If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
> Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
I see no issues with any of the above.
> 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.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Only relevant to those making approval decisions.
> 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.
`core` and `alloc` can be used. `std` cannot be used as this is a bare-metal target.
> 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 tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Use `--target=x86_64-unknown-none-elf` option to cross compile, just like any target. The target does not support running tests.
> 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.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I don't foresee this being a problem.
> 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.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No other targets should be affected by the pull request.
|
|
Update riscv32im-unknown-none-elf to Tier2 support.
Downgrade to Tier 3 platform support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modify the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
|
|
Update to Ubuntu 20.04 and crosstool-ng 1.24.0. I've updated the
ct-ng config and then manually reset the kernel and glibc versions
to the oldest supported.
Specifically, we're updating from kernel 2.6.32.68 to 2.6.32.71
and glibc 2.11.1 to 2.12.1 here. The compiler toolchain is also
updated, but I don't think that's relevant for compatibility.
|
|
Use `optflag` for `--report-time`
Essentially, what is described here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64888#issuecomment-1008047228
There is one difference. The comment proposes to add a
`--report-time-color` option. This change instead uses libtest's
existing `--color` option for that purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add new target armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabi (softfloat)
This adds the new target `armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabi (softfloat)`. It is of course similar to `armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabihf (hardfloat)` which was just recently added to rust except that it is `softfloat`.
My interest lies in the Broadcom BCM4707/4708/BCM4709 family, notably found in some Netgear and Asus consumer routers. The armv7 Cortex-A9 cpus found in these devices do not have an fpu or NEON support.
With this patch I've been able to bootstrap rustc, std and host tools `(extended = true)` to run on the target device for native compilation, allowing the target to be used as a development platform.
With the recent addition of `armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabihf (hardfloat)` it looks like many of the edge cases of using the uclibc c-library are getting worked out nicely. I've been able to compile some complex projects. Some patching still needed in some crates, but getting there for sure. I think `armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabi` is ready to be a tier 3 target.
I use a cross-toolchain from my project to bootstrap rust.
https://github.com/lancethepants/tomatoware
The goal of this project is to create a native development environment with support for various languages.
|
|
mips64-openwrt-linux-musl: Add Tier 3 target
Tier 3 tuple for Mips64 OpenWrt toolchain.
This add first-time support for OpenWrt. Future Tier3 targets will be added as I test them.
Signed-off-by: Donald Hoskins <grommish@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
r=wesleywiser
Stabilize `-Z instrument-coverage` as `-C instrument-coverage`
(Tracking issue for `instrument-coverage`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121)
This PR stabilizes support for instrumentation-based code coverage, previously provided via the `-Z instrument-coverage` option. (Continue supporting `-Z instrument-coverage` for compatibility for now, but show a deprecation warning for it.)
Many, many people have tested this support, and there are numerous reports of it working as expected.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc documentation. Update uses and documentation to use the `-C` option.
Addressing questions raised in the tracking issue:
> If/when stabilized, will the compiler flag be updated to -C instrument-coverage? (If so, the -Z variant could also be supported for some time, to ease migrations for existing users and scripts.)
This stabilization PR updates the option to `-C` and keeps the `-Z` variant to ease migration.
> The Rust coverage implementation depends on (and automatically turns on) -Z symbol-mangling-version=v0. Will stabilizing this feature depend on stabilizing v0 symbol-mangling first? If so, what is the current status and timeline?
This stabilization PR depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90128 , which stabilizes `-C symbol-mangling-version=v0` (but does not change the default symbol-mangling-version).
> The Rust coverage implementation implements the latest version of LLVM's Coverage Mapping Format (version 4), which forces a dependency on LLVM 11 or later. A compiler error is generated if attempting to compile with coverage, and using an older version of LLVM.
Given that LLVM 13 has now been released, requiring LLVM 11 for coverage support seems like a reasonable requirement. If people don't have at least LLVM 11, nothing else breaks; they just can't use coverage support. Given that coverage support currently requires a nightly compiler and LLVM 11 or newer, allowing it on a stable compiler built with LLVM 11 or newer seems like an improvement.
The [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121) and the [issue label A-code-coverage](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/A-code-coverage) link to a few open issues related to `instrument-coverage`, but none of them seem like showstoppers. All of them seem like improvements and refinements we can make after stabilization.
The original `-Z instrument-coverage` support went through a compiler-team MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/278 . Based on that, `@pnkfelix` suggested that this needed a stabilization PR and a compiler-team FCP.
|
|
This incorporates rust-lang into the OpenWrt build system for
Mips64 targets.
Signed-off-by: Donald Hoskins <grommish@gmail.com>
|
|
Essentially, what is described here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64888#issuecomment-1008047228
There is one difference. The comment proposes to add a
`--report-time-color` option. This change instead uses libtest's
existing `--color` option for that purpose.
|
|
Add x86_64-pc-windows-msvc linker-plugin-lto instructions
I had some trouble getting cross language LTO working for this target, in part because the very few links of documentation I could find were linux-centric and because of a few very specific errors I ran into. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to document this, but this is one of the first links I found when looking for documentation so it might be the best place for it.
|
|
add OpenBSD platform-support page
It mentions x86_64, i686, aarch64 and sparc64 which are actively maintained and used on OpenBSD (binaries provided by standard package distribution on OpenBSD).
I volontary kept `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` unmentioned as it was added by `@Yn0ga` in #82733, and I am unaware if it is functional or not (I doubt as I added libc support only few days ago, and std `c_char` signess was wrong). `@Yn0ga` maybe you comment on your `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` usage ?
|
|
Co-authored-by: Noah Lev <camelidcamel@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Stabilize `-Z print-link-args` as `--print link-args`
We have stable options for adding linker arguments; we should have a
stable option to help debug linker arguments.
Add documentation for the new option. In the documentation, make it clear that
the *exact* format of the output is not a stable guarantee.
|
|
r=Mark-Simulacrum
Clarifications in the target tier policy
We've added several targets since the introduction of the target tier policy. Based on experiences of those adding such targets, and discussions around such additions, clarify the target tier policy to make it easier to follow and work with.
None of these changes substantively change the requirements on targets. (In some cases the changes do direct target submitters to follow specific process requirements for the addition of a target, such as how to respond to requirements, where to put target-specific documentation, or what should appear in that documentation. Those changes are procedural in nature and document the procedures we already direct people to follow.)
- Clarify how to quote and respond to the target tier policy requirements. Several times, people have seemed unclear on how to respond to some of the policy requirements, particularly those that just state things the target developers must *not* do (e.g. not posting to PRs that break the target). Add a note that such requirements just need acknowledgement, nothing more.
- Clarify dependency requirements in the face of cross-compilation. I previously phrased this confusingly in terms of "host tools", since that is the case where an exception applies (allowing proprietary target libraries commonly used by binaries for the target). Rephrase it to apply equally to cross-compilation. This doesn't change the net effect of the requirements, since other requirements already cover the dependencies of the Rust toolchain.
- Clarify documentation about running binaries. The requirement for target documentation talks about "running tests", but tier 3 targets often don't support running the full testsuite, and in practice the documentation for how to run an individual binary may be more useful. Change "running tests" to "running binaries, or running tests".
- Explain where to place target-specific documentation (a subdirectory of platform-support, with a link from the platform-support entry for the target).
- Add a template for target-specific documentation.
|
|
The documentation makes it clear that the *exact* format of the output
is not a stable guarantee.
|
|
These options primarily exist to work around bugs, and those bugs have
largely been fixed. Avoid stabilizing them, so that we don't have to
support them indefinitely.
|
|
Co-authored-by: Mark Rousskov <mark.simulacrum@gmail.com>
|
|
The instrument-coverage option is stable; the details of the profile
data format are not.
Recommend llvm-tools-preview as the preferred alternative to obtain a
compatible version of the LLVM tools, rather than finding LLVM tools
elsewhere.
|
|
llvm-tools-preview is still experimental, so document it as such, and
don't use it in the examples.
|
|
Continue supporting -Z instrument-coverage for compatibility for now,
but show a deprecation warning for it.
Update uses and documentation to use the -C option.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc
documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add support for riscv64gc-unknown-freebsd
For https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#tier-3-target-policy:
* 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.)
For all Rust targets on FreeBSD, it's [rust@FreeBSD.org](mailto:rust@FreeBSD.org).
* 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.
Done.
* 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.
Done
* 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.
Done.
* The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
Done.
* Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Fine with me.
* The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
Done.
* If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
Done.
* Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
Done.
* "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
Fine with me.
* 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.
Ok.
* This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Ok.
* 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.
std is implemented.
* 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 tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Building is possible the same way as other Rust on FreeBSD targets.
* 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.
Ok.
* Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
Ok.
* 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.
Ok.
* In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
Ok.
|
|
|
|
std: Get the standard library compiling for wasm64
This commit goes through and updates various `#[cfg]` as appropriate to
get the wasm64-unknown-unknown target behaving similarly to the
wasm32-unknown-unknown target. Most of this is just updating various
conditions for `target_arch = "wasm32"` to also account for `target_arch
= "wasm64"` where appropriate. This commit also lists `wasm64` as an
allow-listed architecture to not have the `restricted_std` feature
enabled, enabling experimentation with `-Z build-std` externally.
The main goal of this commit is to enable playing around with
`wasm64-unknown-unknown` externally via `-Z build-std` in a way that's
similar to the `wasm32-unknown-unknown` target. These targets are
effectively the same and only differ in their pointer size, but wasm64
is much newer and has much less ecosystem/library support so it'll still
take time to get wasm64 fully-fledged.
|
|
Leave -Z strip available temporarily as an alias, to avoid breaking
cargo until cargo transitions to using -C strip. (If the user passes
both, the -C version wins.)
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explain that target-specific documentation should appear in a
subdirectory of platform-support, with a link from the target's entry on
the platform-support page.
|
|
The requirement for target documentation talks about "running tests",
but tier 3 targets often don't support running the full testsuite, and
in practice the documentation for how to run an individual binary may be
more useful. Change "running tests" to "running binaries, or running
tests".
|
