Support clobber_abi and vector registers (clobber-only) in PowerPC inline assembly
This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.
This basically does a similar thing I did in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630 to implement `clobber_abi` for s390x, but for powerpc/powerpc64/powerpc64le.
- This also supports vector registers (as `vreg`) as clobber-only, which need to support clobbering of them to implement `clobber_abi`.
- `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input/output if the unstable `altivec` target feature is enabled, but `core::arch::{powerpc,powerpc64}` vector types, `#[repr(simd)]`, and `core::simd` are all unstable, so the fact that this is currently a clobber-only should not be considered a blocker of clobber_abi implementation or stabilization. So I have not implemented it in this PR.
- See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131551 (which is based on this PR) for a PR to implement this.
- (I'm not sticking to whether that PR should be a separate PR or part of this PR, so I can merge that PR into this PR if needed.)
Refs:
- PPC32 SysV: Section "Function Calling Sequence" in [System V Application Binary Interface PowerPC Processor Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf)
- PPC64 ELFv1: Section 3.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-bit PowerPC ELF Application Binary Interface Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html#FUNC-CALL)
- PPC64 ELFv2: Section 2.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification](https://openpowerfoundation.org/specifications/64bitelfabi/)
- AIX: [Register usage and conventions](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-register-usage-conventions), [Special registers in the PowerPC®](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-special-registers-in-powerpc), [AIX vector programming](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=concepts-aix-vector-programming)
- Register definition in LLVM: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCRegisterInfo.td#L189
If I understand the above four ABI documentations correctly, except for the PPC32 SysV's VR (Vector Registers) and 32-bit AIX (currently not supported by rustc)'s r13, there does not appear to be important differences in terms of implementing `clobber_abi`:
- The above four ABIs are consistent about FPR (0-13: volatile, 14-31: nonvolatile), CR (0-1,5-7: volatile, 2-4: nonvolatile), XER (volatile), and CTR (volatile).
- As for GPR, only the registers we are treating as reserved are slightly different
- r0, r3-r12 are volatile
- r1(sp, reserved), r14-31 are nonvolatile
- r2(reserved) is TOC pointer in PPC64 ELF/AIX, system-reserved register in PPC32 SysV (AFAIK used as thread pointer in Linux/BSDs)
- r13(reserved for non-32-bit-AIX) is thread pointer in PPC64 ELF, small data area pointer register in PPC32 SysV, "reserved under 64-bit environment; not restored across system calls[^r13]" in AIX)
- As for FPSCR, volatile in PPC64 ELFv1/AIX, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv2.
- As for VR (Vector Registers), it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, v0-v19 are volatile in both in PPC64 ELF/AIX, v20-v31 are nonvolatile in PPC64 ELF, reserved or nonvolatile depending on the ABI ([vec-extabi vs vec-default in LLVM](https://reviews.llvm.org/D89684), we are [using vec-extabi](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1797693299)) in AIX:
> When the default Vector enabled mode is used, these registers are reserved and must not be used.
> In the extended ABI vector enabled mode, these registers are nonvolatile and their values are preserved across function calls
I left [FIXME comment about PPC32 SysV](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1790496095) and added ABI check for AIX.
- As for VRSAVE, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, nonvolatile in PPC64 ELFv1, reserved in PPC64 ELFv2/AIX
- As for VSCR, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv1, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC64 ELFv2, volatile in AIX
We are currently treating r1-r2, r13 (non-32-bit-AIX), r29-r31, LR, CTR, and VRSAVE as reserved.
We are currently not processing anything about FPSCR and VSCR, but I feel those are things that should be processed by `preserves_flags` rather than `clobber_abi` if we need to do something about them. (However, PPCRegisterInfo.td in LLVM does not seem to define anything about them.)
Replaces #111335 and #124279
cc `@ecnelises` `@bzEq` `@lu-zero`
r? `@Amanieu`
`@rustbot` label +O-PowerPC +A-inline-assembly
[^r13]: callee-saved, according to [LLVM](6a6af0246b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCCallingConv.td (L322)) and [GCC](a9173a50e7/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h (L859)).
Move versioned Apple LLVM targets from `rustc_target` to `rustc_codegen_ssa`
Fully specified LLVM targets contain the OS version on macOS/iOS/tvOS/watchOS/visionOS, and this version depends on the deployment target environment variables like `MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET`, `IPHONEOS_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET` etc.
We would like to move this to later in the compilation pipeline, both because it feels impure to access environment variables when fetching target information, but mostly because we need access to more information from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130883 to do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118204. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129342#issuecomment-2335156119 for some discussion.
The first and second commit does the actual refactor, it should be a non-functional change, the third commit adds diagnostics for invalid deployment targets, which are now possible to do because we have access to the session.
Tested with the same commands as in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130435.
r? ``````@petrochenkov``````
The OS version depends on the deployment target environment variables,
the access of which we want to move to later in the compilation pipeline
that has access to more information, for example `env_depinfo`.
llvm: Match new LLVM 128-bit integer alignment on sparc
LLVM continues to align more 128-bit integers to 128-bits in the data layout rather than relying on the high level language to do it. Update SPARC target files to match and add a backcompat replacement for current LLVMs.
See llvm/llvm-project#106951 for details
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
r? `@durin42`
(Please wait for the LLVM CI to come back before approving), creating this PR to get it tested there.
compiler: Move `rustc_target::spec::abi::Abi` to `rustc_abi::ExternAbi`
Lift `enum Abi` from its rather odd place in the middle of rustc_target, and make it available again from rustc_abi. You know, the crate where you would expect the enum that describes all the ABIs to be? The platform-neutral ones, at least. This will help further refactoring of how we handle ABIs in the near future[^0].
Rename `Abi` to `ExternAbi` because quite a lot of the compiler overloads the concept of "ABI" enough that the existing name is imprecise and it is often renamed _anyway_. Often this was to avoid conflicts with the *other* type formerly known as `Abi` (now named BackendRepr[^1]), but sometimes it is just for clarity, and this name seems more self-explanatory. It does get reexported, though, using its old name, to reduce the odds of merge-conflicting over the entire tree.
All of `ExternAbi`'s friends come along for the ride, which costs adding some optional dependencies to the rustc_abi crate. However, all of this also allows simply moving three crates entirely off rustc_target:
- rustc_hir_pretty
- rustc_lint_defs
- rustc_mir_build
This odd selection is mostly to demonstrate a secondary motivation: The majority of the front-end of the compiler should be as target-agnostic as possible, and it is easier to assure this if they simply don't depend on the crate that describes targets. Note that I didn't migrate crates that don't benefit from it in this way yet, and I didn't survey every last crate.
[^0]: This is being undertaken as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119183
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132246
Fix `target_os` for `mipsel-sony-psx`
Previously set to `target_os = "none"` and `target_env = "psx"` in [the PR introducing the target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102689/), but although the Playstation 1 is _close_ to a bare metal target in some regards, it's still very much an operating system, so we should instead set `target_os = "psx"`.
This also matches the `mipsel-sony-psp` target, which sets `target_os = "psp"`.
CC target maintainer ``@ayrtonm.``
If there's any code out there that uses `cfg(target_env = "psx")`, they can use `cfg(any(target_os = "psx", target_env = "psx"))` until they bump their MSRV to a version where this is fully fixed.
LLVM continues to align more 128-bit integers to 128-bits in the data
layout rather than relying on the high level language to do it. Update
SPARC target files to match and add a backcompat replacement for current
LLVMs.
See llvm/llvm-project#106951 for details
Add `lp64e` RISC-V ABI
This PR adds support for the `lp64e` RISC-V ABI, which is the 64-bit equivalent of the `ilp32e` ABI that is already supported.
For reference, this ABI was originally added to LLVM in [this PR](https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401).
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
rustc_target: Add pauth-lr aarch64 target feature
Add the pauth-lr target feature, corresponding to aarch64 FEAT_PAuth_LR. This feature has been added in LLVM 19.
It is currently not supported by the Linux hwcap and so we cannot add runtime feature detection for it at this time.
r? `@Amanieu`
Emit future-incompatibility lint when calling/declaring functions with vectors that require missing target feature
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.)
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it a post-monomorphization error to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI.
See the [nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127731#issuecomment-2288558187) for more discussion.
r? RalfJung
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI when
relevant target features are enabled.
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this
turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it an error to declare or call functions using those
vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are
disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant.
Fix `target_vendor` in QNX Neutrino targets
The `x86_64-pc-nto-qnx710` and `i586-pc-nto-qnx700` targets have `pc` in their target triple names, but the vendor was set to the default `"unknown"`.
CC target maintainers `@flba-eb,` `@gh-tr,` `@jonathanpallant` and `@japaric`
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130991 (Vectorized SliceContains)
- #131928 (rustdoc: Document `markdown` module.)
- #131955 (Set `signext` or `zeroext` for integer arguments on RISC-V and LoongArch64)
- #131979 (Minor tweaks to `compare_impl_item.rs`)
- #132036 (Add a test case for #131164)
- #132039 (Specialize `read_exact` and `read_buf_exact` for `VecDeque`)
- #132060 ("innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens)
- #132065 (Clarify documentation of `ptr::dangling()` function)
- #132066 (Fix a typo in documentation of `pointer::sub_ptr()`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Always specify `llvm_abiname` for RISC-V targets
For RISC-V targets, when `llvm_abiname` is not specified LLVM will infer the ABI from the target features, causing #116344 to occur. This PR adds the correct `llvm_abiname` to all RISC-V targets where it is missing (which are all soft-float targets), and adds a test to prevent future RISC-V targets from accidentally omitting `llvm_abiname`. The only affect of this PR is that `-Ctarget-feature=+f` (or similar) will no longer affect the ABI on the modified targets.
<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
r? `@RalfJung`
<!--- homu-ignore:end -->
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
Migrate `llvm::set_comdat` and `llvm::SetUniqueComdat` to LLVM-C FFI.
Note, now we can call `llvm::set_comdat` only when the target actually
supports adding comdat. As this has no convenient LLVM-C API, we
implement this as `TargetOptions::supports_comdat`.
Co-authored-by: Stuart Cook <Zalathar@users.noreply.github.com>
Setting up indirect access to external data for loongarch64-linux-{musl,ohos}
In issue #118053, the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu` target needs indirection to access external data, and so do the `loongarch64-unknown-linux-musl` and `loongarch64-unknown-linux-ohos` targets.
Add the pauth-lr target feature, corresponding to aarch64 FEAT_PAuth_LR.
This feature has been added in LLVM 19.
It is currently not supported by the Linux hwcap and so we cannot add
runtime feature detection for it at this time.
LLVM has added 3 new address spaces to support special Windows use
cases. These shouldn't trouble us for now, but LLVM requires matching
data layouts.
See llvm/llvm-project#111879 for details
Fix clobber_abi and disallow SVE-related registers in Arm64EC inline assembly
Currently `clobber_abi` in Arm64EC inline assembly is implemented using `InlineAsmClobberAbi::AArch64NoX18`, but broken since it attempts to clobber registers that cannot be used in Arm64EC: https://godbolt.org/z/r3PTrGz5r
```
error: cannot use register `x13`: x13, x14, x23, x24, x28, v16-v31 cannot be used for Arm64EC
--> <source>:6:14
|
6 | asm!("", clobber_abi("C"), options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: cannot use register `x14`: x13, x14, x23, x24, x28, v16-v31 cannot be used for Arm64EC
--> <source>:6:14
|
6 | asm!("", clobber_abi("C"), options(nostack, nomem, preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<omitted the same errors for v16-v31>
```
Additionally, this disallows SVE-related registers per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131332#issuecomment-2401189142.
cc ``@dpaoliello``
r? ``@Amanieu``
``@rustbot`` label O-windows O-AArch64 +A-inline-assembly
compiler: `{TyAnd,}Layout` comes home
The `Layout` and `TyAndLayout` types are heavily abstract and have no particular target-specific qualities, though we do use them to answer questions particular to targets. We can keep it that way if we simply move them out of `rustc_target` and into `rustc_abi`. They bring a small entourage of connected types with them, but that's fine.
This will allow us to strengthen a few abstraction barriers over time and thus make the notoriously gnarly layout code easier to refactor. For now, we don't need to worry about that and deliberately use reexports to minimize this particular diff.
