Move ZST ABI handling to `rustc_target`
Currently, target specific handling of ZST function call ABI (specifically passing them indirectly instead of ignoring them) is handled in `rustc_ty_utils`, whereas all other target specific function call ABI handling is located in `rustc_target`. This PR moves the ZST handling to `rustc_target` so that all the target-specific function call ABI handling is in one place. In the process of doing so, this PR fixes#125850 by ensuring that ZST arguments are always correctly ignored in the x86-64 `"sysv64"` ABI; any code which would be affected by this fix would have ICEd before this PR. Tests are also added using `#[rustc_abi(debug)]` to ensure this behaviour does not regress.
Fixes#125850
Promote Mac Catalyst targets to Tier 2, and ship with rustup
Promote the Mac Catalyst targets `x86_64-apple-ios-macabi` and `aarch64-apple-ios-macabi` to Tier 2, as per [the MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/761) (see that for motivation and details).
These targets are now also distributed with rustup, although without the sanitizer runtime, as that currently has trouble building, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129069.
Add powerpc-unknown-linux-muslspe compile target
This is almost identical to already existing targets:
- powerpc_unknown_linux_musl.rs
- powerpc_unknown_linux_gnuspe.rs
It has support for PowerPC SPE (muslspe), which
can be used with GCC version up to 8. It is useful for Freescale or IBM cores like e500.
This was verified to be working with OpenWrt build system for CZ.NIC's Turris 1.x routers, which are using Freescale P2020, e500v2, so add it as a Tier 3 target.
Follow-up of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100860
Refactor `powerpc64` call ABI handling
As the [specification](https://openpowerfoundation.org/specifications/64bitelfabi/) for the ELFv2 ABI states that returned aggregates are returned like arguments as long as they are at most two doublewords, I've merged the `classify_arg` and `classify_ret` functions to reduce code duplication. The only functional change is to fix#128579: the `classify_ret` function was incorrectly handling aggregates where `bits > 64 && bits < 128`. I've used the aggregate handling implementation from `classify_arg` which doesn't have this issue.
`@awilfox` could you test this on `powerpc64-unknown-linux-musl`? I'm only able to cross-test on `powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu` and `powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu` locally at the moment, and as a tier 3 target `powerpc64-unknown-linux-musl` has zero CI coverage.
Fixes: #128579
Use more slice patterns inside the compiler
Nothing super noteworthy. Just replacing the common 'fragile' pattern of "length check followed by indexing or unwrap" with slice patterns for legibility and 'robustness'.
r? ghost
Promote aarch64-apple-darwin to Tier 1
This promotes aarch64-apple-darwin to Tier 1 status as per rust-lang/rfcs#3671 and tracking issue #73908. Not sure what else is necessary for this to impement the aforementioned RFC, however I figured I'd try. I did read in previous issues and PRs that the necessary infrastructure was already in place for the aarch64-apple-darwin target, and the RFC mentions the same. So this should be all thats necessary in order for the target to be promoted.
This is a recreation of my previous PR because I accidentally did an incorrect git rebase which caused unnecessary changes to various commit SHAs. So this PR is a recreation of my previous PR without said stumble. My bad.
Update compiler_builtins to 0.1.114
The `weak-intrinsics` feature was removed from compiler_builtins in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/598, so dropped the `compiler-builtins-weak-intrinsics` feature from alloc/std/sysroot.
In https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/593, some builtins for f16/f128 were added. These don't work for all compiler backends, so add a `compiler-builtins-no-f16-f128` feature and disable it for cranelift and gcc.
Add NuttX based targets for RISC-V and ARM
Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.
NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.
For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.
I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the 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 will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple. For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.
> 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 is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf` or `thumbv7m-none-eabi` and changed the `os` section to `nuttx`.
> 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 feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.
> 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 only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
Agreed, and there is no problem here.
> 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.
No new dependencies are added.
> 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.
Linking is performed by rust-lld
> "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 terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> 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.
> 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, but libstd is not supported now, I'll implement it later.
> 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.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of
> rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork
> of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.
rustc_target: add known safe s390x target features
This pull request adds known safe target features for s390x (aka IBM Z systems).
Currently, these features are unstable since stabilizing the target features requires submitting proposals.
The `vector` feature was added in IBM Z13 (`arch11`), and this is a SIMD feature for the newer IBM Z systems.
The `backchain` attribute is the IBM Z way of adding frame pointers like unwinding capabilities (the "frame-pointer" switch on IBM Z and IBM POWER platforms will add _emulated_ frame pointers to the binary, which profilers can't use for unwinding the stack).
Both attributes can be applied at the LLVM module or function levels. However, the `backchain` attribute has to be enabled for all the functions in the call stack to get a successful unwind process.
Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.
NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.
For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.
I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the 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 will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple.
For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.
> 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 is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf` or `thumbv7m-none-eabi`
and changed the `os` section to `nuttx`.
> 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 feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.
> 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 only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
Agreed, and there is no problem here.
> 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.
No new dependencies are added.
> 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.
Linking is performed by rust-lld
> "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 terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> 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.
> 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, but libstd is not supported now,
I'll implement it later.
> 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.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of
> rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork
> of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.
Signed-off-by: Huang Qi <huangqi3@xiaomi.com>
This is almost identical to already existing targets:
- powerpc_unknown_linux_musl.rs
- powerpc_unknown_linux_gnuspe.rs
It has support for PowerPC SPE (muslspe), which
can be used with GCC version up to 8. It is useful for Freescale or IBM
cores like e500.
This was verified to be working with OpenWrt build system for CZ.NIC's
Turris 1.x routers, which are using Freescale P2020, e500v2, so add it as
a Tier 3 target.
In llvm/llvm-project@f0eb5587ce all
support for 3DNow! intrinsics and instructions were removed. Per the commit message
there, only AMD chips between 1998 and 2011 or so actually supported
these instructions, and they were effectively replaced by SSE which was
available on many more chips. I'd be very surprised if anyone had ever
used these from Rust.
... this is a special attribute that was made to be a target-feature in
LLVM 18+, but in all previous versions, this "feature" is a naked
attribute. We will have to handle this situation differently than all
other target-features.
Fill out target-spec metadata for all targets
**What does this PR try to resolve?**
This PR completes the target-spec metadata fields for all targets. This is required for a corresponding Cargo PR which adds a check for whether a target supports building the standard library when the `-Zbuild-std=std` flag is passed ([see this issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/87). This functionality in Cargo is reliant on the output of `--print=target-spec-json`.
**How should we test and review this PR?**
Check that a given target-spec metadata has been updated with:
```
$ ./x.py build library/std
$ build/host/stage1/bin/rustc --print=target-spec-json --target <target_name> -Zunstable-options
```
**Additional Information**
A few things to note:
* Where a targets 'std' or 'host tools' support is listed as '?' in the rust docs, these are left as 'None' with this PR. The corresponding changes in cargo will only reject an attempt to build std if the 'std' field is 'Some(false)'. In the case it is 'None', cargo will continue trying to build
* There's no rush for this to be merged. I understand that the format for this is not finalised yet.
* Related: #120745
Remove the unstable `extern "wasm"` ABI (`wasm_abi` feature tracked
in #83788).
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127513#issuecomment-2220410679
and following, this ABI is a failed experiment that did not end
up being used for anything. Keeping support for this ABI in LLVM 19
would require us to switch wasm targets to the `experimental-mv`
ABI, which we do not want to do.
It should be noted that `Abi::Wasm` was internally used for two
things: The `-Z wasm-c-abi=legacy` ABI that is still used by
default on some wasm targets, and the `extern "wasm"` ABI. Despite
both being `Abi::Wasm` internally, they were not the same. An
explicit `extern "wasm"` additionally enabled the `+multivalue`
feature.
I've opted to remove `Abi::Wasm` in this patch entirely, instead
of keeping it as an ABI with only internal usage. Both
`-Z wasm-c-abi` variants are now treated as part of the normal
C ABI, just with different different treatment in
adjust_for_foreign_abi.
Fix 32-bit Arm reg classes by hierarchically sorting them
We were rejecting legal `asm!` because we were asking for the "greatest" feature that includes a register class, instead of the "least" feature that includes a register class. This was only revealed on certain 32-bit Arm targets because not all have the same register limitations.
This is a somewhat hacky solution, but other solutions would require potentially rearchitecting how the internals of parsing or rejecting register classes work for all targets.
Fixes#126797
r? ``@Amanieu``
