Disable the tests and generate an error if MC/DC is used on LLVM 19.
The support will be ported separately, as it is substantially
different on LLVM 19, and there are no plans to support both
versions.
Sync ar_archive_writer to LLVM 18.1.3
From LLVM 15.0.0-rc3. This adds support for COFF archives containing Arm64EC object files and has various fixes for AIX big archive files.
The return value changed from an Instruction to a DbgRecord in
LLVM 19. As we don't actually use the result, drop the return
value entirely to support both.
We currently compile our LLVM bindings using `-DNDEBUG` if
debuginfo for LLVM is disabled. However, `NDEBUG` doesn't have
any relation to debuginfo, it controls whether assertions are
enabled.
Rename the environment variable to `LLVM_ASSERTIONS` and drive
it using the `llvm_assertions` option. Also drop the explicit
`debug(false)` call, as cc already sets this up using the
cargo `DEBUG` environment variable.
Since this codegen flag now only controls LLVM-generated comments rather than
all assembly comments, make the name more accurate (and also match Clang).
Fixes for 32-bit SPARC on Linux
This PR fixes a number of issues which previously prevented `rustc` from being built
successfully for 32-bit SPARC using the `sparc-unknown-linux-gnu` triplet.
In particular, it adds linking against `libatomic` where necessary, uses portable `AtomicU64`
for `rustc_data_structures` and rewrites the spec for `sparc_unknown_linux_gnu` to use
`TargetOptions` and replaces the previously used `-mv8plus` with the more portable
`-mcpu=v9 -m32`.
To make `rustc` build successfully, support for 32-bit SPARC needs to be added to the `object`
crate as well as the `nix` crate which I will be sending out later as well.
r? nagisa
Add no_std Xtensa targets support
Adds no_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` 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 target already implements core.
> 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)
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
If we don't do this, some versions of LLVM (at least 17, experimentally)
will double-emit some error messages, which is how I noticed this. Given
that it seems to be costing some extra work, let's only request the
summary bitcode production if we'll actually bother writing it down,
otherwise skip it.
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone
file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more
efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin
-fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o
(full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of
the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's
more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm
working on this area.
I talked some to @teresajohnson about naming in this area, as things
seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build
systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too
ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized
bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang
option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new
spelling in the world.
Per @dtolnay, you can work around the lack of this by using `lld
--thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of
bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all
the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized
bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the
time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
Improved code with clippy
I haven't used the bootstrapped compiler, but I think I have made some improvements using clippy. I have already made the following changes to the compiler:
Replaced `self.first().is_digit(10)` with `self.first().is_ascii_digit()` on lines 633, 664, and 680 of compiler/rust_lexer/src/lib.rs.
Removed unnecessary cast on line 262 of compiler/rustc_lexer/src/unescape.rs
Replaced ok_or_else with ok_or on line 303 of compiler/rustc_lexer/src/unescape.rs
Replaced `!std::env::var("RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP").is_ok()` with `std::env::var("RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP").is_err()` on line 4 of compiler/rustc_macros/build.rs
Removed needless borrow for generic argument `env`on line 53 of compiler/rust_llvm/build.rs
Set writable and dead_on_unwind attributes for sret arguments
Set the `writable` and `dead_on_unwind` attributes for `sret` arguments. This allows call slot optimization to remove more memcpy's.
See https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#parameter-attributes for the specification of these attributes. In short, the statement we're making here is that:
* The return slot is writable.
* The return slot will not be read if the function unwinds.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90595.
Rust passes a *const &OperandBundleDef to these APIs, usually from a
Vec<&OperandBundleDef> or so. Previously we were dereferencing that
pointer and passing it to the ArrayRef constructor with some length (N).
This meant that if the length was 0, we were dereferencing a pointer to
nowhere, and if the length was >1 then loading the *second* element
somewhere in LLVM would've been reading past the end.
Since Rust can't hold OperandBundleDef by-value we're forced to indirect
through a vector that copies out the OperandBundleDefs from the
by-reference list on the Rust side in order to match the LLVM expected
API.
Remove unnecessary cast from `LLVMRustGetInstrProfIncrementIntrinsic`
(Noticed while reviewing #123409.)
This particular cast appears to have been copied over from clang, but there are plenty of other call sites in clang that don't bother with a cast here, and it works fine without one.
For context, `llvm::Intrinsic::ID` is a typedef for `unsigned`, and `llvm::Intrinsic::instrprof_increment` is a member of `enum IndependentIntrinsics : unsigned`.
---
The formatting change in `unwrap(M)` is the result of manually running `clang-format` on this file, and then reverting all changes other than the ones affecting these lines.
Add consistency with phrases "meantime" and "mean time"
"mean time" is used in a few places while "meantime" is used everywhere else; this would make usage consistent throughout the codebase.
This particular cast appears to have been copied over from clang, but there are
plenty of other call sites in clang that don't bother with a cast here, and it
works fine without one.
For context, `llvm::Intrinsic::ID` is a typedef for `unsigned`, and
`llvm::Intrinsic::instrprof_increment` is a member of
`enum IndependentIntrinsics : unsigned`.
Require LLVM_CONFIG to be set in rustc_llvm/build.rs
This environment variable should always be set by bootstrap in `rustc_llvm_env`. The fallback is quite ugly and complicated, so removing it is nice.
bf71daedc2/src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/compile.rs (L1166)
I tried finding when this was added in git history, but it pointed all the way to "add build scripts" at which point I stopped digging more. This has always been here.
cc `@nikic` `@cuviper` in case you happen to be aware of a deeper reason behind this
r? bootstrap
Manually run `clang-format` on `CoverageMappingWrapper.cpp`
In the current version of #123409, there are several unrelated changes to `CoverageMappingWrapper.cpp` that seem to be the result of running `clang-format` on that file.
Instead of asking for those changes to be undone, I figure it's easier to just make them myself as a separate PR, since I was vaguely intending to do that at some point anyway.
In a few cases I've strategically added comments to make the grouping of parameters a little nicer, but mostly it doesn't matter much.
coverage: Correctly report and check LLVM's coverage mapping version
I was puzzled by the fact that the LLVM 18 update (#120055) didn't need to modify this version check, despite the fact that LLVM 18 uses a newer version of the coverage mapping format.
This turned out to be because we were inappropriately hard-coding a specific version (`Version6`) in the C++ wrapper, instead of using `CovMapVersion::CurrentVersion` to reflect the version actually used by LLVM on our behalf.
This PR fixes that, and also changes the Rust-side version check to accept the new coverage mapping version used by LLVM 18, since the necessary compatibility work has already been done.
---
### Quick history of `LLVMRustCoverageMappingVersion`:
- Originally it returned LLVM's `coverage::CovMapVersion::CurrentVersion`, as intended. The Rust-side code would verify it, and also embed it as the actual coverage version number in the output binary.
- At some point it was changed to a hard-coded value, to work around a (now-irrelevant) compatibility issue. This was incorrect (but mostly benign), because the override should have been performed on the Rust side instead, after verifying LLVM's value.
- Later contributors dutifully updated the hard-coded value, because they didn't have enough context to identify the problem.
- With this PR, it once again returns LLVM's current coverage version number, and the Rust-side code checks it against an expected range. We don't override the result, but we do indicate where that override should occur if it ever becomes necessary.
The bad-alloc installer was incorrectly asserting that the other handler
isn't set yet, instead of checking its own, but we can avoid that by
changing the order we install them.
Ref: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/83040
