I added this back in 111999, but I no longer think it's a good idea
- It had to get scaled back to only power-of-two things to not break a bunch of targets
- LLVM seems to be getting better at memcpy removal anyway
- Introducing vector instructions has seemed to sometimes (115515) make autovectorization worse
So this removes it from the codegen crates entirely, and instead just tries to use <https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/traits/builder/trait.BuilderMethods.html#method.typed_place_copy> instead of direct `memcpy` so things will still use load/store for immediates.
sanitizers: Create the rustc_sanitizers crate
Create the `rustc_sanitizers` crate and move the source code for the CFI and KCFI sanitizers to it. The tracking issue for reviewing and moving sanitizers into a compiler crate is #123619. This is part of our work to organize and stabilize support for the sanitizers. (See our roadmap at https://hackmd.io/`@rcvalle/S1Ou9K6H6.)`
Create the rustc_sanitizers crate and move the source code for the CFI
and KCFI sanitizers to it.
Co-authored-by: David Wood <agile.lion3441@fuligin.ink>
The actual ABI implication here is that in some cases the values
are required to be "consecutive", i.e. must either all be passed
in registers or all on stack (without padding).
Adjust the code to either use Uniform::new() or Uniform::consecutive()
depending on which behavior is needed.
Then, when lowering this in LLVM, skip the [1 x i128] to i128
simplification if is_consecutive is set. i128 is the only case
I'm aware of where this is problematic right now. If we find
other cases, we can extend this (either based on target information
or possibly just by not simplifying for is_consecutive entirely).
When passing a 16 (or higher) aligned struct by value on ppc64le,
it needs to be passed as an array of `i128` rather than an array
of `i64`. This will force the use of an even starting register.
For the case of a 16 byte struct with alignment 16 it is important
that `[1 x i128]` is used instead of `i128` -- apparently, the
latter will get treated similarly to `[2 x i64]`, not exhibiting
the correct ABI. Add a `force_array` flag to `Uniform` to support
this.
The relevant clang code can be found here:
fe2119a7b0/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PPC.cpp (L878-L884)fe2119a7b0/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PPC.cpp (L780-L784)
I think the corresponding psABI wording is this:
> Fixed size aggregates and unions passed by value are mapped to as
> many doublewords of the parameter save area as the value uses in
> memory. Aggregrates and unions are aligned according to their
> alignment requirements. This may result in doublewords being
> skipped for alignment.
In particular the last sentence.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122767.
CFI: Restore typeid_for_instance default behavior
Restore typeid_for_instance default behavior of performing self type erasure, since it's the most common case and what it does most of the time. Using concrete self (or not performing self type erasure) is for assigning a secondary type id, and secondary type ids are only assigned when they're unique and to methods, and also are only tested for when methods are used as function pointers.
Add aarch64-apple-visionos and aarch64-apple-visionos-sim tier 3 targets
Introduces `aarch64-apple-visionos` and `aarch64-apple-visionos-sim` as tier 3 targets. This allows native development for the Apple Vision Pro's visionOS platform.
This work has been tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/642. There is a corresponding `libc` change https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/3568 that is not required for merge.
Ideally we would be able to incorporate [this change](https://github.com/gimli-rs/object/pull/626) to the `object` crate, but the author has stated that a release will not be cut for quite a while. Therefore, the two locations that would reference the xrOS constant from `object` are hardcoded to their MachO values of 11 and 12, accompanied by TODOs to mark the code as needing change. I am open to suggestions on what to do here to get this checked in.
# 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-visionos.md](e88379034a/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.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` which is matches the iOS Apple Silicon simulator (`aarch64-apple-ios-sim`) and other Apple 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 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 besubject 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 mirrors the standard library for watchOS and iOS, with minor divergences.
> 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.
Documentation is provided in [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.md](e88379034a/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.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.
Restore typeid_for_instance default behavior of performing self type
erasure, since it's the most common case and what it does most of the
time. Using concrete self (or not performing self type erasure) is for
assigning a secondary type id, and secondary type ids are only assigned
when they're unique and to methods, and also are only tested for when
methods are used as function pointers.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #121546 (Error out of layout calculation if a non-last struct field is unsized)
- #122448 (Port hir-tree run-make test to ui test)
- #123212 (CFI: Change type transformation to use TypeFolder)
- #123218 (Add test for getting parent HIR for synthetic HIR node)
- #123324 (match lowering: make false edges more precise)
- #123389 (Avoid panicking unnecessarily on startup)
- #123397 (Fix diagnostic for qualifier in extern block)
- #123431 (Stabilize `proc_macro_byte_character` and `proc_macro_c_str_literals`)
- #123439 (coverage: Remove useless constants)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
coverage: Remove useless constants
After #122972 and #123419, these constants don't serve any useful purpose, so get rid of them.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
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.
CFI: Support function pointers for trait methods
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for function pointers to trait methods by attaching both concrete and abstract types to functions.
KCFI does this through generation of a `ReifyShim` on any function pointer for a method that could go into a vtable, and keeping this separate from `ReifyShim`s that are *intended* for vtable us by setting a `ReifyReason` on them.
CFI does this by setting both the concrete and abstract type on every instance.
This should land after #123024 or a similar PR, as it diverges the implementation of CFI vs KCFI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
Use the `Align` type when parsing alignment attributes
Use the `Align` type in `rustc_attr::parse_alignment`, removing the need to call `Align::from_bytes(...).unwrap()` later in the compilation process.
Simplify trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together
This PR simplifies the trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together, as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540#issuecomment-1994010274.
And also do some correctness fixes found during the review.
cc `@weihanglo`
r? `@michaelwoerister`
CFI: Fix methods as function pointer cast
Fix casting between methods and function pointers by assigning a secondary type id to methods with their concrete self so they can be used as function pointers.
This was split off from #116404.
cc `@compiler-errors` `@workingjubilee`
Fix casting between methods and function pointers by assigning a
secondary type id to methods with their concrete self so they can be
used as function pointers.
Make `TyCtxt::coroutine_layout` take coroutine's kind parameter
For coroutines that come from coroutine-closures (i.e. async closures), we may have two kinds of bodies stored in the coroutine; one that takes the closure's captures by reference, and one that takes the captures by move.
These currently have identical layouts, but if we do any optimization for these layouts that are related to the upvars, then they will diverge -- e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120168#discussion_r1536943728.
This PR relaxes the assertion I added in #121122, and instead make the `TyCtxt::coroutine_layout` method take the `coroutine_kind_ty` argument from the coroutine, which will allow us to differentiate these by-move and by-ref bodies.
coverage: Re-enable `UnreachablePropagation` for coverage builds
This is a sequence of 3 related changes:
- Clean up the existing code that scans for unused functions
- Detect functions that were instrumented for coverage, but have had all their coverage statements removed by later MIR transforms (e.g. `UnreachablePropagation`)
- Re-enable `UnreachablePropagation` in coverage builds
Because we now detect functions that have lost their coverage statements, and treat them as unused, we don't need to worry about `UnreachablePropagation` removing all of those statements. This is demonstrated by `tests/coverage/unreachable.rs`.
Fixes#116171.
If a function was instrumented for coverage, but all of its coverage statements
have been removed by later MIR transforms, it should be treated as "unused"
even if the compiler generates an unreachable stub for it.
Unbox and unwrap the contents of `StatementKind::Coverage`
The payload of coverage statements was historically a structure with several fields, so it was boxed to avoid bloating `StatementKind`.
Now that the payload is a single relatively-small enum, we can replace `Box<Coverage>` with just `CoverageKind`.
This patch also adds a size assertion for `StatementKind`, to avoid accidentally bloating it in the future.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
We already use `Instance` at declaration sites when available to glean
additional information about possible abstractions of the type in use.
This does the same when possible at callsites as well.
The primary purpose of this change is to allow CFI to alter how it
generates type information for indirect calls through `Virtual`
instances.
