tvOS simulator support on Apple Silicon for rustc
Closes or is a subtask of #115692.
# Tier 3 Target Policy
At this tier, the Rust project provides no official support for a target, so we place minimal requirements on the introduction of targets.
> * 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.)
See [`src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.md`](4ab4d48ee5/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.md)
> * 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.
> * 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.
This naming scheme matches `$ARCH-$VENDOR-$OS-$ABI` (I think `sim` is the ABI here) which is matches the iOS apple silicon simulator (`aarch64-apple-ios-sim`). [There is some discussion about renaming some apple simulator targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115692#issuecomment-1712931910) to match the `-sim` suffix but that is outside the scope of this PR.
> * 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 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.
> * 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.
> * "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.
This contribution is fully available under the standard Rust license with no additional legal restrictions whatsoever. This PR does not introduce any new dependency less permissive than the Rust license policy.
The new targets do not depend on proprietary libraries.
> * Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This new target implements as much of the standard library as the other tvOS targets do.
> * 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.
I have added the target to the other tvOS targets in [`src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.md`](4ab4d48ee5/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.md)
> * 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.
> * 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.
> * 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.
I acknowledge these requirements and intend to ensure that they are met.
This target does not touch any existing tier 2 or tier 1 targets and should not break any other targets.
This triggers a consistency check in rust (that all linker flavours
must have identical arguments), and on NetBSD/i386, the 32-bitness
is implicitly chosen through the chosen toolchain, and appears to
not be required. So drop it, and also drop the imports of the
now-no-longer-used identifiers.
Allow target specs to use an LLD flavor, and self-contained linking components
This PR allows:
- target specs to use an LLD linker-flavor: this is needed to switch `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to using LLD, and is currently not possible because the current flavor json serialization fails to roundtrip on the modern linker-flavors. This can e.g. be seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115622#discussion_r1321312880 which explains where an `Lld::Yes` is ultimately deserialized into an `Lld::No`.
- target specs to declare self-contained linking components: this is needed to switch `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to using `rust-lld`
- adds an end-to-end test of a custom target json simulating `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` being switched to using `rust-lld`
- disables codegen backends from participating because they don't support `-Zgcc-ld=lld` which is the basis of mcp510.
r? `@petrochenkov:` if the approach discussed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115622#discussion_r1329403467 and on zulip would work for you: basically, see if we can emit only modern linker flavors in the json specs, but accept both old and new flavors while reading them, to fix the roundtrip issue.
The backwards compatible `LinkSelfContainedDefault` variants are still serialized and deserialized in `crt-objects-fallback`, while the spec equivalent of e.g. `-Clink-self-contained=+linker` is serialized into a different json object (with future-proofing to incorporate `crt-objects-fallback` in the future).
---
I've been test-driving this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113382 to test actually switching `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to `rust-lld` (and fix what needs to be fixed in CI, bootstrap, etc), and it seems to work fine.
This restricts instructions to those offered by Pentium,
to support e.g. AMD Geode.
There is already an entry for this target in the NetBSD
platform support page at
src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/netbsd.md
...so this should forestall its removal.
Additional fixes are needed for some vendored modules, this
is the changes in the rust compiler core itself.
Removes the backwards-compatible `LinkSelfContainedDefault`, by
incorporating the remaining specifics into `LinkSelfContained`.
Then renames the modern options to keep the old name.
this ensures roundtripping of stable and unstable values:
- backwards-compatible values can be deserialized, as well as the new
unstable values
- unstable values are serialized.
It's a better name, and lets "active features" refer to the features
that are active in a particular program, due to being declared or
enabled by the edition.
The commit also renames `Features::enabled` as `Features::active` to
match this; I changed my mind and have decided that "active" is a little
better thatn "enabled" for this, particularly because a number of
pre-existing comments use "active" in this way.
Finally, the commit renames `Status::Stable` as `Status::Accepted`, to
match `ACCEPTED_FEATURES`.
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Implement `-Clink-self-contained=-linker` opt out
This implements the `-Clink-self-contained` opt out necessary to switch to lld by changing rustc's defaults instead of cargo's.
Components that are enabled and disabled on the CLI are recorded, for the purpose of being merged with the ones which the target spec will declare (I'll open another PR for that tomorrow, for easier review).
For MCP510, we now check whether using the self-contained linker is disabled on the CLI. Right now it would only be sensible to with `-Zgcc-ld=lld` (and I'll add some checks that we don't both enable and disable a component on the CLI in a future PR), but the goal is to simplify adding the check of the target's enabled components here in the follow-up PRs.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Bring back generic parameters for indices in rustc_abi and make it compile on stable
This effectively reverses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107163, allowing rust-analyzer to depend on this crate again,
It also moves some glob imports / expands them in the first commit because they made it more difficult for me to reason about things.
Add Zba, Zbb, and Zbs as target features for riscv64-linux-android
This pull request adds the Zba, Zbb, and Zbs target features to the `riscv64-linux-android` target specification. These features have been enabled and tested internally in Android infrastructure.
Add Minimal Std implementation for UEFI
# Implemented modules:
1. alloc
2. os_str
3. env
4. math
# Related Links
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100499
API Change Proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/87
# Additional Information
This was originally part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100316. Since that PR was becoming too unwieldy and cluttered, and with suggestion from `@dvdhrm,` I have extracted a minimal std implementation to this PR.
The example in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/unknown-uefi.md` has been tested for `x86_64-unknown-uefi` and `i686-unknown-uefi` in OVMF. It would be great if someone more familiar with AARCH64 can help with testing for that target.
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
Raise minimum supported Apple OS versions
This implements the proposal to raise the minimum supported Apple OS versions as laid out in the now-completed MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556).
As of this PR, rustc and the stdlib now support these versions as the baseline:
- macOS: 10.12 Sierra
- iOS: 10
- tvOS: 10
- watchOS: 5 (Unchanged)
In addition to everything this breaks indirectly, these changes also erase the `armv7-apple-ios` target (currently tier 3) because the oldest supported iOS device now uses ARMv7s. Not sure what the policy around tier3 target removal is but shimming it is not an option due to the linker refusing.
[Per comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556#issuecomment-1297175073), this requires a FCP to merge. cc `@wesleywiser.`
The -macabi targets are iOS running on MacOS, and they use the runtime
libraries for MacOS, thus they have the same sanitizers available as the
*-apple-darwin targets.
Add `i686-pc-windows-gnullvm` triple
With various fixes that are already present in the code, a fully working i686 target can join other targets in `*-windows-gnullvm` family. Again this will be mostly useful for MSYS2 right now but I plan to open MCP for providing at least prebuilt std for `windows-gnullvm` as the next step which will expand usability of these 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 pledge to do my best maintaining it, MSYS2 is one of interested consumers. Previously added `gnullvm` triples proved there is not much maintenance required.
> 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 triple name is consistent with other targets and was discussed at [`t-compiler/LLVM+mingw-w64 Windows targets`](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/LLVM.2Bmingw-w64.20Windows.20targets)
> 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 think the explanation in platform support doc is enough to make this aspect clear.
> 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.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
It's even more liberal than already existing `*-pc-windows-gnu`.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> 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.
There are no new dependencies/features required.
> 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.
As previously said it's using open source tools only.
> "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 such terms present.
> 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.
It seems to work, at least for cross compilation.
> 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, running tests doesn't work right now (without hacks) because Rust's build system doesn't seem to support testing targets built from `.json`.
Docs will be updated once this lands in beta allowing master branch to build and run tests without `.json` files.
> 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.
Always add LC_BUILD_VERSION for metadata object files
As of Xcode 15 Apple's linker has become a bit more strict about the warnings it produces. One of those new warnings requires all valid Mach-O object files in an archive to have a LC_BUILD_VERSION load command:
```
ld: warning: no platform load command found in 'ARCHIVE[arm64][2106](lib.rmeta)', assuming: iOS-simulator
```
This was already being done for Mac Catalyst so this change expands this logic to include it for all Apple platforms. I filed this behavior change as FB12546320 and was told it was the new intentional behavior.
Use `preserve_mostcc` for `extern "rust-cold"`
As experimentation in #115242 has shown looks better than `coldcc`. Notably, clang exposes `preserve_most` (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#preserve-most) but not `cold`, so this change should put us on a better-supported path.
And *don't* use a different convention for cold on Windows, because that actually ends up making things worse. (See comment in the code.)
cc tracking issue #97544
This reverts commit 4410868798, reversing
changes made to 249595b752.
This causes linker failures with the binutils version used by
cross (#115239), as well as miscompilations when using the mold
linker.
As experimentation in 115242 has shown looks better than `coldcc`.
And *don't* use a different convention for cold on Windows, because that actually ends up making things worse.
cc tracking issue 97544
This option tells LLVM to emit relaxable relocation types
R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX/R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX/R_386_GOT32X in applicable cases. True
matches Clang's CMake default since 2020-08 [1] and latest LLVM default[2].
This also works around a GNU ld<2.41 issue[3] when using
general-dynamic/local-dynamic TLS models in `-Z plt=no` mode with latest LLVM.
[1]: c41a18cf61
[2]: 2aedfdd9b8
[3]: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24784
As of Xcode 15 Apple's linker has become a bit more strict about the
warnings it produces. One of those new warnings requires all valid
Mach-O object files in an archive to have a LC_BUILD_VERSION load
command:
```
ld: warning: no platform load command found in 'ARCHIVE[arm64][2106](lib.rmeta)', assuming: iOS-simulator
```
This was already being done for Mac Catalyst so this change expands this
logic to include it for all Apple platforms. I filed this behavior
change as FB12546320 and was told it was the new intentional behavior.
Replace the \01__gnu_mcount_nc to LLVM intrinsic for ARM
Current `-Zinstrument-mcount` for ARM32 use the `\01__gnu_mcount_nc` directly for its instrumentation function.
However, the LLVM does not use this mcount function directly, but it wraps it to intrinsic, `llvm.arm.gnu.eabi.mcount` and the transform pass also only handle the intrinsic.
As a result, current `-Zinstrument-mcount` not work on ARM32. Refer: https://github.com/namhyung/uftrace/issues/1764
This commit replaces the mcount name from native function to the LLVM intrinsic so that the transform pass can handle it.
Current `-Zinstrument-mcount` for ARM32 use the `\01__gnu_mcount_nc`
directly for its instrumentation function.
However, the LLVM does not use this mcount function directly, but it wraps
it to intrinsic, `llvm.arm.gnu.eabi.mcount` and the transform pass also
only handle the intrinsic.
As a result, current `-Zinstrument-mcount` not work on ARM32.
Refer: https://github.com/namhyung/uftrace/issues/1764
This commit replaces the mcount name from native function to the
LLVM intrinsic so that the transform pass can handle it.
Signed-off-by: ChoKyuWon <kyuwoncho18@gmail.com>
Infer `Lld::No` linker hint when the linker stem is a generic compiler driver
This PR basically reverts the temporary solution in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113631 to a more long-term solution.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
In [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113631#issuecomment-1634598238), you had ideas about a long-term solution:
> I wonder what a good non-temporary solution for the inference would look like.
>
> * If the default is `(Cc::No, Lld::Yes)` (e.g. `rust-lld`)
>
> * and we switch to some specific platform compiler (e.g. `-C linker=arm-none-eabi-gcc`), should we change to `Lld::No`? Maybe yes?
> * and we switch to some non-default but generic compiler `-C linker=clang`? Then maybe not?
>
> * If the default is `(Cc::Yes, Lld::Yes)` (e.g. future x86_64 linux with default LLD)
>
> * and we switch to some specific platform compiler (e.g. `-C linker=arm-none-eabi-gcc`), should we change to `Lld::No`? Maybe yes?
> * and we switch to some non-default but generic compiler `-C linker=clang`? Then maybe not?
>
I believe that we should infer the `Lld::No` linker hint for any `-Clinker` override, and all the cases above:
- the linker drivers have their own defaults, so in my mind `-Clinker` is a signal to use its default linker / flavor, rather than ours or the target's. In the case of generic compilers, it's more likely than not going to be `Lld::No`. I would expect this to be the case in general, even when including platform-specific compilers.
- the guess will be wrong if the linker driver uses lld by default (and we also don't want to search for `-fuse-ld` link args), but will work in the more common cases. And the minority of other cases can fix the wrong guess by opting into the precise linker flavor.
- this also ensures backwards-compatibility: today, even on targets with an lld default and overriding the linker, rustc will not use lld. That includes `thumbv6m-none-eabi` where issue #113597 happened.
It looks like the simplest option, and the one with least churn: we maintain the current behavior in ambiguous cases.
I've tested that this works on #113597, as expected from the failure.
(I also have a no-std `run-make` test using a custom target json spec: basically simulating a future `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` using an lld flavor by default, to check that e.g. `-Clinker=clang` doesn't use lld. I could add that test to this PR, but IIUC such a custom target requires `cargo -Z build-std` and we have no tests depending on this cargo feature yet. Let me know if you want to add this test of the linker inference for such targets.)
What do you think ?
Switch to LLD as default linker for loongarch64-unknown-none*
The [LLD already supports LoongArch](6084ee7420), it's time to switch to LLD as default linker for `loongarch64-unknown-none*`.
feat: `riscv-interrupt-{m,s}` calling conventions
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's [`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to [the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets
this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's
[`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling
e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking
visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to
be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack
frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the
registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best
context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it
knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an
implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every
register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt
handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after
its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes
no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For
a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to
[the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM
does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention
directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for
differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be
aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode
interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed
through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no
appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
add aarch64-unknown-teeos target
TEEOS is a mini os run in TrustZone, for trusted/security apps. The libc of TEEOS is a part of musl. The kernel of TEEOS is micro kernel.
This MR is to add a target for teeos.
MRs for libc and rust-std are in progress.
Compiler team MCP: [MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/652)
Re-enable atomic loads and stores for all RISC-V targets
This roughly reverts PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66548
Atomic "CAS" are still disabled for targets without the *“A” Standard Extension for Atomic Instructions*. However this extension only adds instructions for operations more complex than simple loads and stores, which are always atomic when aligned.
In the [Unprivileged Spec v. 20191213](https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/) section 2.6 *Load and Store Instructions* of chapter 2 *RV32I Base Integer Instruction Set* (emphasis mine):
> Even when misaligned loads and stores complete successfully, these accesses might run extremely slowly depending on the implementation (e.g., when implemented via an invisible trap). Further-more, whereas **naturally aligned loads and stores are guaranteed to execute atomically**, misaligned loads and stores might not, and hence require additional synchronization to ensure atomicity.
Unfortunately PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66548 did not provide much details on the bug that motivated it, but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66240 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85736 appear related and happen with targets that do have the A extension.
It lints against features that are inteded to be internal to the
compiler and standard library. Implements MCP #596.
We allow `internal_features` in the standard library and compiler as those
use many features and this _is_ the standard library from the "internal to the compiler and
standard library" after all.
Marking some features as internal wasn't exactly the most scientific approach, I just marked some
mostly obvious features. While there is a categorization in the macro,
it's not very well upheld (should probably be fixed in another PR).
We always pass `-Ainternal_features` in the testsuite
About 400 UI tests and several other tests use internal features.
Instead of throwing the attribute on each one, just always allow them.
There's nothing wrong with testing internal features^^
WASI threads, implementation of wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads target
This PR adds a target proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/574 by `@abrown` and implementation of `std:🧵:spawn` for the target `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads`
### Tier 3 Target Policy
As tier 3 targets, the new targets are required to adhere to [the tier 3 target policy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#tier-3-target-policy) requirements. This section quotes each requirement in entirety and describes how they are met.
> - 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.)
See [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922/files#diff-a48ee9d94f13e12be24eadd08eb47b479c153c340eeea4ef22276d876dfd4f3e).
> - 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.
> - 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.
The target is using the same name for $ARCH=wasm32 and $OS=wasi as existing Rust targets. The suffix `preview1` introduced to accurately set expectations because eventually this target will be deprecated and follows [MCP 607](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/607). The suffix `threads` indicates that it’s an extension that enables threads to the existing target and it follows [MCP 574](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/574) which describes the rationale behind introducing a separate target.
> - 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 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.
> - 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.
> - "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.
This PR does not introduce any new dependency.
The new target doesn’t support building host tools.
> 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 full standard library is available for this target as it’s an extension to an existing target that has already supported it.
> 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.
Only manual test running is supported at the moment with some tweaks in the test runner codebase. For build and running tests see [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922/files#diff-a48ee9d94f13e12be24eadd08eb47b479c153c340eeea4ef22276d876dfd4f3e).
> - 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.
> - 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.
> - 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.
I acknowledge these requirements and intend to ensure they are met.
