Fix `std::os::fortanix_sgx::usercalls::raw::UsercallNrs`
It was 0-indexed but should be 1-indexed. This PR just removes the duplicate code and re-exports the internal enum.
Fixes https://github.com/fortanix/rust-sgx/issues/88
r? @joshtriplett
hir: add HirId to main Hir nodes
This is the 1st PR in a series dedicated to `HirId`-ification, i.e. deprecating `ast::NodeId`s after the AST > HIR lowering process. The bigger proof of concept can be seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57578.
**Phase 1**: store `HirId` in all remaining (some already have it) main HIR nodes (excluding `*Id` objects).
- [x] `Field`
- [x] `FieldPat`
- [x] `ForeignItem`
- [x] `GenericParam`
- [x] `Lifetime`
- [x] `MacroDef`
- [x] `PathSegment`
- [x] `PatKind::Binding`
- [x] `Stmt`
- [x] `StructField`
- [x] `TypeBinding`
- [x] `VariantData`
- [x] `WhereClause`
- [x] `WhereEqPredicate`
r? @Zoxc
Cc @varkor
targets: aarch64-unknown-none: Add +strict-align
On AArch64, an unaligned access causes a synchronous exception. In the current
state of the target, the compiler might generate unaligned accesses, see
https://github.com/rust-embedded/rust-raspi3-tutorial/issues/10.
Since this is a bare-metal target, it is possible that there is no exception
handling in place (yet) to recover from this case, causing a binary to just
silently fail.
Add `+strict-align` to avoid this case.
NVPTX target specification
This change adds a built-in `nvptx64-nvidia-cuda` GPGPU no-std target specification and a basic PTX assembly smoke tests.
The approach is taken here and the target spec is based on `ptx-linker`, a project started about 1.5 years ago. Key feature: bitcode object files being linked with LTO into the final module on the linker's side.
Prior to this change, the linker used a `ld` linker-flavor, but I think, having the special CLI convention is a more reliable way.
Questions about further progress on reliable CUDA workflow with Rust:
1. Is it possible to create a test suite `codegen-asm` to verify end-to-end integration with LLVM backend?
1. How would it be better to organise no-std `compile-fail` tests: add `#![no_std]` where possible and mark others as `ignore-nvptx` directive, or alternatively, introduce `compile-fail-no-std` test suite?
1. Can we have the `ptx-linker` eventually be integrated as `rls` or `clippy`? Hopefully, this should allow to statically link against LLVM used in Rust and get rid of the [current hacky solution](https://github.com/denzp/rustc-llvm-proxy).
1. Am I missing some methods from `rustc_codegen_ssa:🔙:linker::Linker` that can be useful for bitcode-only linking?
Currently, there are no major public CUDA projects written in Rust I'm aware of, but I'm expecting to have a built-in target will create a solid foundation for further experiments and awesome crates.
Related to #38789Fixes#38787Fixes#38786
On AArch64, an unaligned access causes a synchronous exception. In the current
state of the target, the compiler might generate unaligned accesses, see
https://github.com/rust-embedded/rust-raspi3-tutorial/issues/10.
Since this is a bare-metal target, it is possible that there is no exception
handling in place (yet) to recover from this case, causing a binary to just
silently fail.
Add `+strict-align` to avoid this case.
Implement public/private dependency feature
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44663
The core implementation is done - however, there are a few issues that still need to be resolved:
- [x] The `EXTERNAL_PRIVATE_DEPENDENCY` lint currently does notthing when the `public_private_dependencies` is not enabled. Should mentioning the lint (in an `allow` or `deny` attribute) be an error if the feature is not enabled? (Resolved- the feature was removed)
- [x] Crates with the name `core` and `std` are always marked public, without the need to explcitily specify them on the command line. Is this what we want to do? Do we want to allow`no_std`/`no_core` crates to explicitly control this in some way? (Resolved - private crates are now explicitly specified)
- [x] Should I add additional UI tests? (Resolved - added more tests)
- [x] Does it make sense to be able to allow/deny the `EXTERNAL_PRIVATE_DEPENDENCY` on an individual item? (Resolved - this is implemented)
