| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Update the reference
This updates the reference to use the new mdbook-spec preprocessor, which is a Cargo library inside the reference submodule.
Note that this PR contains a bunch of bootstrap cleanup commits to assist with making sure the submodules are working correctly. All of the cleanup PRs should have a description in their commit. I'd be happy to move those to a separate PR if that makes review easier.
The main changes for the reference are:
- Move the `doc::Reference` bootstrap step out of the generic macro into a custom step.
- This step needs to build rustdoc because the new mdbook-spec plugin uses rustdoc for generating links.
- PATH is updated so that the rustdoc binary can be found.
- rustbook now includes the mdbook-spec plugin as a dependency.
- rustbook enables the mdbook-spec preprocessor.
I did a bunch of testing with the various commands and setups, such as:
- `submodules=true` and `submodules=false`
- having all submodules deinitialized
- not in a git repository
However, there are probably thousands of different permutations of different commands, settings, and environments, so there is a chance I'm missing something.
|
|
rustc book: document how the RUST_TARGET_PATH variable is used
based on the module comment in
rust/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/mod.rs
Fixes #128280
|
|
based on the module comment in
rust/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/mod.rs
Fixes #128280
|
|
|
|
This updates the reference which is now using a new mdbook plugin. This
requires a little extra work than a normal book because the plugin uses
`rustdoc` to generate links to the standard library. It also ensures
that the submodule is available for *any* command that uses rustbook,
since it is now part of the rustbook workspace.
|
|
Add NuttX based targets for RISC-V and ARM
Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.
NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.
For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.
I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the targets.
Tier 3 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.)
I will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple. For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.
> 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.
This is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf` or `thumbv7m-none-eabi` and changed the `os` section to `nuttx`.
> 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 feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.
> 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.
The only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
Agreed, and there is no problem here.
> 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.
No new dependencies are added.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
> code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
> from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
> Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
> libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
> built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
> generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
> such libraries at all. 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.
Linking is performed by rust-lld
> "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.
There are no terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> 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.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
Again I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
> 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.
Building is described in platform support doc, but libstd is not supported now, I'll implement it later.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
I believe I didn't break any other 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.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
> 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.)
Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.
|
|
Correct rustdoc section where we talk about rustdoc emitting errors on invalid code
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/stop.20accepting.20broken.20code/near/401760318).
r? `@notriddle`
|
|
Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.
NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.
For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.
I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the targets.
Tier 3 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.)
I will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple.
For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.
> 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.
This is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf` or `thumbv7m-none-eabi`
and changed the `os` section to `nuttx`.
> 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 feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.
> 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.
The only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
Agreed, and there is no problem here.
> 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.
No new dependencies are added.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
> code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
> from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
> Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
> libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
> built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
> generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
> such libraries at all. 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.
Linking is performed by rust-lld
> "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.
There are no terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> 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.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
Again I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
> 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.
Building is described in platform support doc, but libstd is not supported now,
I'll implement it later.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
I believe I didn't break any other 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.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
> 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.)
Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.
Signed-off-by: Huang Qi <huangqi3@xiaomi.com>
|
|
In particular, remove the note saying cdylibs can't link against dylibs — that hasn't been true for over four years.
* 2019-11-07: note is written: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/b54e8ecc2e0eec9ab9d0b1c1d9cb55f7602800c4
* 2020-01-23: restriction is lifted (without updating docs): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/72aaa3a414d17aa0c4f19feafa5bab5f84b60e63
|
|
Every time we apply version-sorting, we also say to sort non-lowercase before
lowercase. This seems likely to be what we'll want for future sorting,
as well. For simplicity, just incorporate that into the definition,
"unless otherwise specified".
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=Mark-Simulacrum
use "bootstrap" instead of "rustbuild" in comments and docs
Let's stick with the single name "bootstrap" to refer to the bootstrap project to avoid confusion. This should make it clearer, especially for new contributors.
|
|
Ensure floats are returned losslessly by the Rust ABI on 32-bit x86
Solves #115567 for the (default) `"Rust"` ABI. When compiling for 32-bit x86, this PR changes the `"Rust"` ABI to return floats indirectly instead of in x87 registers (with the exception of single `f32`s, which this PR returns in general purpose registers as they are small enough to fit in one). No change is made to the `"C"` ABI as that ABI requires x87 register usage and therefore will need a different solution.
|
|
|
|
doc: update config file path in platform-support/wasm32-wasip1-threads.md
The config content described in the `Building the target` section should be the configuration used for building Rust itself:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/7d97c59438e933e86f557ed999da3b8dfc6855a7/config.example.toml#L845-L848
I believe this is different from Cargo's configuration. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the discussion here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922#discussion_r1272263810.
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
|
|
Update books
## rust-lang/book
2 commits in 45c1a6d69edfd1fc91fb7504cb73958dbd09441e..f1e49bf7a8ea6c31ce016a52b8a4f6e1ffcfbc64
2024-06-25 21:12:15 UTC to 2024-06-20 16:10:32 UTC
- Update ch10-00-generics.md (rust-lang/book#3963)
- infra: ignore Nova configuration directory (rust-lang/book#3962)
## rust-lang/edition-guide
3 commits in cb58c430b4e8054c2cb81d2d4434092c482a93d8..941db8b3df45fd46cd87b50a5c86714b91dcde9c
2024-06-30 19:26:27 UTC to 2024-06-20 18:43:18 UTC
- Add a section for the never type change in e2024 (rust-lang/edition-guide#310)
- Add 2024 unsafe attributes. (rust-lang/edition-guide#308)
- Add 2024 unsafe extern blocks. (rust-lang/edition-guide#309)
## rust-lang/reference
7 commits in 0b805c65804019b0ac8f2fe3117afad82a6069b8..1ae3deebc3ac16e276b6558e01420f8e605def08
2024-06-29 16:59:51 UTC to 2024-06-18 22:16:37 UTC
- Provide an example of `target_family` being multi-valued (rust-lang/reference#1518)
- Remove stubs needed for the link checker. (rust-lang/reference#1517)
- Document new `#[expect]` attribute and `reasons` parameter (RFC 2383) (rust-lang/reference#1237)
- Update recognized tool attributes (rust-lang/reference#1498)
- Add example of 1-ary tuple type (rust-lang/reference#1514)
- underscore-expr: add more examples (rust-lang/reference#1478)
- Remove outdated info about impl Trait in parameters and generics in the same function (rust-lang/reference#1495)
## rust-lang/rust-by-example
4 commits in b1d97bd6113aba732b2091ce093c76f2d05bb8a0..658c6c27cb975b92227936024816986c2d3716fb
2024-06-30 11:58:29 UTC to 2024-06-30 11:52:38 UTC
- Remove awkward match in if_let (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1725)
- Edit grammatical mistake (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1830)
- Update paragraph in src/fn/diverging.md (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1853)
- Fix minor typo in from_into.md (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1854)
## rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
11 commits in aec82168dd3121289a194b381f56076fc789a4d2..d6e3a32a557db5902e714604def8015d6bb7e0f7
2024-07-01 10:51:26 UTC to 2024-06-18 18:24:17 UTC
- Update new target check-cfg instructions (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2006)
- Add Rust for Linux integration tests documentation (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2004)
- Add docs for building Fuchsia locally and in CI (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1989)
- provide `libstdc++.so.6` through `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1999)
- Document how to run `run-make` tests on Windows (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2002)
- Document `needs-symlink` directive (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2001)
- Rename `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1` (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1678)
- Document inert vs active attributes (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1110)
- Document hard-resetting submodules (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2000)
- Fix note about compiletest header `rustfix-only-machine-applicable` (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1998)
- Mention `RUSTC_ICE=0` to suppress ICE file (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1997)
|
|
|
|
r=joshtriplett,calebcartwright
Add nightly style guide section for `precise_capturing` `use<>` syntax
r? style
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
|
|
|
|
Update the LoongArch target documentation
The docs for the LoongArch targets are a bit dated since their introduction, and the prose has some room for improvement as well. Streamline a bit, referring to the neighboring targets' docs, and provide up-to-date information as much as I can come up with.
cc fellow target maintainer `@heiher` for review of target-specific bits
|
|
Fix Markdown tables in platform-support.md
These table entries have wrong number of columns so the "notes" field is missing from the rendered page. Fix by removing excess empty columns.
|
|
r=estebank,workingjubilee
patchable-function-entry: Add unstable compiler flag and attribute
Tracking issue: #123115
Add the -Z patchable-function-entry compiler flag and the #[patchable_function_entry(prefix_nops = m, entry_nops = n)] attribute.
Rebased and adjusted the canditate implementation to match changes in the RFC.
|
|
The docs for the LoongArch targets are a bit dated since their
introduction, and the prose has some room for improvement as well.
Streamline a bit, referring to the neighboring targets' docs, and
provide up-to-date information as much as I can come up with.
|
|
These table entries have wrong number of columns so the "notes" field is
missing from the rendered page. Fix by removing excess empty columns.
|
|
tests
|
|
`-Z patchable-function-entry` works like `-fpatchable-function-entry`
on clang/gcc. The arguments are total nop count and function offset.
See MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deprecate no-op codegen option `-Cinline-threshold=...`
This deprecates `-Cinline-threshold` since using it has no effect. This has been the case since the new LLVM pass manager started being used, more than 2 years ago.
Recommend using `-Cllvm-args=--inline-threshold=...` instead.
Closes #89742 which is E-help-wanted.
|
|
Tier 2 std support must always be known
We should never have a tier 2 target without knowing its support status so I think this line in the tier 2 section is a bit wrong:
> ? indicates the standard library support is unknown or a work-in-progress.
My first inclination was just to drop the "unknown or" part. However, after thinking about it some more, I think we should just use `✓` for this. The only affected targets are UEFI and frankly there are targets with worse std support that are marked with `✓` (e.g. wasm).
I think a `✓` should mean "this supports building with std (and is checked in CI for tier 2+)". The target errata can detail the current limitations or special requirements for doing so.
|
|
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/753
|
|
Remove use of const traits (and `feature(effects)`) from stdlib
The current uses are already unsound because they are using non-const impls in const contexts. We can reintroduce them by reverting the commit in this PR, after #120639 lands.
Also, make `effects` an incomplete feature.
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
Add `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` maintenance status
As noted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126451#issuecomment-2167211749 `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` is not maintained by the OpenBSD devs. If a maintainer is found this can be updated with their information but we should document the current status and note explicitly that it's different from other OpenBSD targets.
|
|
Replace sort implementations
This PR replaces the sort implementations with tailor-made ones that strike a balance of run-time, compile-time and binary-size, yielding run-time and compile-time improvements. Regressing binary-size for `slice::sort` while improving it for `slice::sort_unstable`. All while upholding the existing soft and hard safety guarantees, and even extending the soft guarantees, detecting strict weak ordering violations with a high chance and reporting it to users via a panic.
* `slice::sort` -> driftsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/driftsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
* `slice::sort_unstable` -> ipnsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/ipnsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
#### Why should we change the sort implementations?
In the [2023 Rust survey](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/02/19/2023-Rust-Annual-Survey-2023-results.html#challenges), one of the questions was: "In your opinion, how should work on the following aspects of Rust be prioritized?". The second place was "Runtime performance" and the third one "Compile Times". This PR aims to improve both.
#### Why is this one big PR and not multiple?
* The current documentation gives performance recommendations for `slice::sort` and `slice::sort_unstable`. If for example only one of them were to be changed, this advice would be misleading for some Rust versions. By replacing them atomically, the advice remains largely unchanged, and users don't have to change their code.
* driftsort and ipnsort share a substantial part of their implementations.
* The implementation of `select_nth_unstable` uses internals of `slice::sort_unstable`, which makes it impractical to split changes.
---
This PR is a collaboration with `@orlp.`
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126380 (Add std Xtensa targets support)
- #126636 (Resolve Clippy `f16` and `f128` `unimplemented!`/`FIXME`s )
- #126659 (More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute)
- #126711 (Make Option::as_[mut_]slice const)
- #126717 (Clean up some comments near `use` declarations)
- #126719 (Fix assertion failure for some `Expect` diagnostics.)
- #126730 (Add opaque type corner case test)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Add std Xtensa targets support
Adds std Xtensa targets. This enables using Rust on ESP32, ESP32-S2 and ESP32-S3 chips.
Tier 3 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.)
`@MabezDev,` `@ivmarkov` and I (`@SergioGasquez)` will maintain the targets.
> 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 target triple is consistent with other 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.
> If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name. Periods (.) are known
to cause issues in Cargo.
We follow the same naming convention as other targets.
> 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.
The target does not introduce any legal issues.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
There are no license incompatibilities
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Everything added is under that licenses
> 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.
Requirements are not changed for any other target.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target
(whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on
proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary
runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the
target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target;
cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. 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.
The linker used by the targets is the GCC linker from the GCC toolchain cross-compiled for Xtensa.
GNU GPL.
> "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.
No such terms exist for this target
> 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.
Understood
> 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.
The targets implement libStd almost in its entirety, except for the missing support for process, as
this is a bare metal platform. The process `sys\unix` module is currently stubbed to return "not
implemented" errors.
> 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.
Here is how to build for the target https://docs.esp-rs.org/book/installation/riscv-and-xtensa.html
and it also covers how to run binaries on the target.
> 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.
Understood
> 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
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends
from any host target.
It can produce assembly, but it requires a custom LLVM with Xtensa support
(https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/). The patches are trying to be upstreamed
(https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4)
|
|
Stabilise `c_unwind`
Fix #74990
Fix #115285 (that's also where FCP is happening)
Marking as draft PR for now due to `compiler_builtins` issues
r? `@Amanieu`
|
|
Rework doc-test attribute documentation example
This PR change the doc-test attribute documentation example to prefer a more neutral example `deny(dead_code)`, instead of `deny(warnings)`, which is less susceptible to breakage across Rust version.
r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add @badboy and @BlackHoleFox as Mac Catalyst maintainers
Assented in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/761#issuecomment-2173071316 and https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Promote.20Mac.20Catalyst.20targets.20to.20Tier.202.20compiler-team.23761/near/444590303.
|
|
|
|
|
