Fix incorrect 'llvm_target' value used on watchOS target
## Issue
`xcodebuild -create-xcframework` command doesn't recognize static libraries that are built on "arm64_32-apple-watchos" target.
Here are steps to reproduce the issue on a Mac:
1. Install nightly toolchain `nightly-2024-03-27`. Needs this specific version, because newer nightly versions are broken on watchos target.
1. Create an empty library: `mkdir watchos-lib && cd watchos-lib && cargo init --lib`.
1. Add configuration `lib.crate-type=["staticlib"]` to Cargo.toml.
1. Build the library: `cargo +nightly-2024-03-27 build --release -Zbuild-std --target arm64_32-apple-watchos`
1. Run `xcodebuild -create-xcframework` to put the static library into a xcframework, which results in an error:
```
$ xcodebuild -create-xcframework -library target/arm64_32-apple-watchos/release/libwatchos_lib.a -output test.xcframework
error: unable to determine the platform for the given binary '.../watchos-lib/target/arm64_32-apple-watchos/release/libwatchos_lib.a'; check your deployment version settings
```
## Fix
The root cause of this error is `xcodebuild` couldn't read `LC_BUILD_VERSION` from the static library to determine the library's target platform. And the reason it's missing is that an incorrect `llvm_target` value is used in `arm64_32-apple-watchos` target. The expected value is `<arch>-apple-watchos<major>.<minor>.0`, i.e. "arm64_32-apple-watchos8.0.0".
The [.../apple/mod.rs](43f4f2a3b1/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/base/apple/mod.rs (L321)) file contains functions that construct such string. There is an existing function `watchos_sim_llvm_target` which returns llvm target value for watchOS simulator. But there is none for watchOS device. This PR adds that missing function to align watchOS with other Apple platform targets.
To verify the fix, you can simply build a toolchain on this PR branch and repeat the steps above using the built local toolchain to verify the `xcodebuild -create-xcframework` command can create a xcframework successfully.
Furthermore, you can verify `LC_BUILD_VERSION` contains correct info by using the simple shell script below to print `LC_BUILD_VERSION` of the static library that's built on watchos target:
```shell
bin=target/arm64_32-apple-watchos/release/libwatchos_lib.a
file=$(ar -t "$bin" | grep -E '\.o$' | head -n 1)
ar -x "$bin" "$file"
vtool -show-build-version "$file"
```
Here is an example output from my machine:
```
watchos_rust-495d6aaf3bccc08d.watchos_rust.35ba42bf9255ca9d-cgu.0.rcgu.o:
Load command 1
cmd LC_BUILD_VERSION
cmdsize 24
platform WATCHOS
minos 8.0
sdk n/a
ntools 0
```
MSVC targets should use COFF as their archive format
While adding support for Arm64EC I ran into an issue where the standard library's rlib was missing the "EC Symbol Table" which is required for the MSVC linker to find import library symbols (generated by Rust's `raw-dylib` feature) when building for EC.
The root cause of the issue is that LLVM only generated symbol tables (including the EC Symbol Table) if the `ArchiveKind` is `COFF`, but the MSVC targets didn't set their archive format, so it was defaulting to GNU.
Fix target-cpu fpu features on Arm R/M-profile
This is achieved by converting `+<fpu>,-d32,{,-fp64}` to `+<fpu>d16{,sp}`.
By using a single additive feature that captures `d16` vs `d32` and `sp` vs
`dp`, we prevent `-<feature>` from overriding `-C target-cpu` at build time.
Remove extraneous `-fp16` from `armv7r` targets, as this is not included in
`vfp3` anyway, but was preventing `fp16` from being enabled by e.g.,
`-C target-cpu=cortex-r7`, which does support `fp16`.
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.
This is achieved by converting `+<fpu>,-d32,{,-fp64}` to `+<fpu>d16{,sp}`.
By using a single additive feature that captures `d16` vs `d32` and `sp` vs
`dp`, we prevent `-<feature>` from overriding `-C target-cpu` at build time.
Remove extraneous `-fp16` from `armv7r` targets, as this is not included in
`vfp3` anyway, but was preventing `fp16` from being enabled by e.g.,
`-C target-cpu=cortex-r7`, which does support `fp16`.
The expected value is "<arch>-apple-watchos<major>.<minor>.0", i.e.
"arm64_32-apple-watchos8.0.0".
compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/base/apple/mod.rs contains functions that
construct such string. There is an existing function
`watchos_sim_llvm_target` which returns llvm target value for watchOS
simulator. But there is none for watchOS device. This commit adds that
missing function to align watchOS with other Apple platform targets.
Check `x86_64` size assertions on `aarch64`, too
(Context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Checking.20size.20assertions.20on.20aarch64.3F)
Currently the compiler has around 30 sets of `static_assert_size!` for various size-critical data structures (e.g. various IR nodes), guarded by `#[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_pointer_width = "64"))]`.
(Presumably this cfg avoids having to maintain separate size values for 32-bit targets and unusual 64-bit targets. Apparently it may have been necessary before the i128/u128 alignment changes, too.)
This is slightly incovenient for people on aarch64 workstations (e.g. Macs), because the assertions normally aren't checked until we push to a PR. So this PR adds `aarch64` to the `#[cfg(..)]` guarding all of those assertions in the compiler.
---
Implemented with a simple find/replace. Verified by manually inspecting each `static_assert_size!` in `compiler/`, and checking that either the replacement succeeded, or adding aarch64 wouldn't have been appropriate.
This enables KCFI-based testing for all the CFI run-pass tests in the
suite today. We can add the test header on top of in-flight CFI tests
once they land.
It also enables KCFI as a sanitizer for x86_64 and aarch64 Linux to make
this possible. The sanitizer should likely be available for all aarch64,
x86_64, and riscv targets, but that isn't critical for initial testing.
Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`
Fixes#121593
Displays the register size information obtained from `suggest_modifier()` and `default_modifier()`.
Remove `target_override`
Because the "target can override the backend" and "backend can override the target" situation is a mess. Details in the individual commits.
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
Add bare metal riscv32 target.
I asked in the embedded Rust matrix if it would be OK to clone a PR to add another riscv32 configuration. The riscv32ima in this case. ``````@MabezDev`````` was open to this suggestion as a maintainer for the Riscv targets.
I now took https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117958/ for inspiration and added/edited the appropriate files.
# [Tier 3 target policy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#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 proposed new tier 3 target must be reviewed and approved by a member of the compiler team based on these requirements. The reviewer may choose to gauge broader compiler team consensus via a [Major Change Proposal (MCP)](https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/mcp.html).
>
> A proposed target or target-specific patch that substantially changes code shared with other targets (not just target-specific code) must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate team for that shared code before acceptance.
> * 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.)
The target being added is using riscv32 as a basis, with added extensions. The riscv32 targets already have a maintainer and are named in the description file.
> * 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.
Name is derived from the extensions used in the 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.
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * 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.
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * 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.
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * "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.
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * 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.
Same conditions apply compared to other riscv32 targets.
> * 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 target is build on top of existing riscv32 targets and inherits these implementations.
> * 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.
The documentation of this target is shared along with targets that target riscv32 with a different configuration of extensions.
> * 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.
I now understand, apologies for the mention before.
> * 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.
I now understand, apologies for the link to a similar PR before.
> * 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.
This should not cause issues, as the target has similarities to other configurations of the riscv32 targets.
> * Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target.
This should not cause issues, as the target has similarities to other configurations of the riscv32 targets.
Backend and target selection is a mess: the target can override the
backend (via `Target::default_codegen_backend`), *and* the backend can
override the target (via `CodegenBackend::target_override`).
The code that handles this is ugly. It calls `build_target_config`
twice, once before getting the backend and once again afterward. It also
must check that both overrides aren't triggering at the same time.
This commit removes the latter override. It's used in rust-gpu but
@eddyb said via Zulip that removing it would be ok. This simplifies the
code greatly, and will allow some nice follow-up refactorings.
This would trigger a `Size::sub: 0 - 8 would result in negative size` abort,
if `data.last_offset > offset`.
This is almost hilariously easy to trigger (https://godbolt.org/z/8rbv57xET):
```rust
#[repr(C)]
pub struct DoubleFloat {
f: f64,
g: f32,
}
#[no_mangle]
pub extern "C" fn foo(x: DoubleFloat) {}
```
Tests for this will be covered by the cast-target-abi.rs test added in a later commit.
Rename `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads` to `wasm32-wasip1-threads`
This commit renames the current `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads` target to `wasm32-wasip1-threads`. The need for this rename is a bit unfortunate as the previous name was chosen in an attempt to be future-compatible with other WASI targets. Originally this target was proposed to be `wasm32-wasi-threads`, and that's what was originally implemented in wasi-sdk as well. After discussion though and with the plans for the upcoming component-model target (now named `wasm32-wasip2`) the "preview1" naming was chosen for the threads-based target. The WASI subgroup later decided that it was time to drop the "preview" terminology and recommends "pX" instead, hence previous PRs to add `wasm32-wasip2` and rename `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1`.
So, with all that history, the "proper name" for this target is different than its current name, so one way or another a rename is required. This PR proposes renaming this target cold-turkey, unlike `wasm32-wasi` which is having a long transition period to change its name. The threads-based target is predicted to see only a fraction of the traffic of `wasm32-wasi` due to the unstable nature of the WASI threads proposal itself.
While I was here I updated the in-tree documentation in the target spec file itself as most of the documentation was copied from the original WASI target and wasn't as applicable to this target.
Also, as an aside, I can at least try to apologize for all the naming confusion here, but this is hopefully the last WASI-related rename.
Update /NODEFAUTLIB comment for msvc
I've tried to explain a bit more about the effects of `/NODEFAULTLIB` when using msvc link.exe (or compatible) as they're different from `-nodefaultlib` on gnu.
I also removed the part about licensing as I'm not sure licensing is an issue? Or rather, it's no more or less of an issue no matter how you link msvc libraries. The license is the one you get if using VS at all and even dynamic linking includes static code (e.g. startup/shutdown code, etc).
r? petrochenkov
Update Windows platform support
This should not be merged until Rust 1.76 but I'm told this may need an fcp in addition to [MCP 651](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/651).
cc ```@rust-lang/compiler``` ```@rust-lang/release```
This commit renames the current `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads` target to
`wasm32-wasip1-threads`. The need for this rename is a bit unfortunate
as the previous name was chosen in an attempt to be future-compatible
with other WASI targets. Originally this target was proposed to be
`wasm32-wasi-threads`, and that's what was originally implemented in
wasi-sdk as well. After discussion though and with the plans for the
upcoming component-model target (now named `wasm32-wasip2`) the
"preview1" naming was chosen for the threads-based target. The WASI
subgroup later decided that it was time to drop the "preview"
terminology and recommends "pX" instead, hence previous PRs to add
`wasm32-wasip2` and rename `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1`.
So, with all that history, the "proper name" for this target is
different than its current name, so one way or another a rename is
required. This PR proposes renaming this target cold-turkey, unlike
`wasm32-wasi` which is having a long transition period to change its
name. The threads-based target is predicted to see only a fraction of
the traffic of `wasm32-wasi` due to the unstable nature of the WASI
threads proposal itself.
While I was here I updated the in-tree documentation in the target spec
file itself as most of the documentation was copied from the original
WASI target and wasn't as applicable to this target.
Also, as an aside, I can at least try to apologize for all the naming
confusion here, but this is hopefully the last WASI-related rename.
LLVM Bitcode Linker: A self contained linker for nvptx and other targets
This PR introduces a new linker named `llvm-bitcode-linker`. It is a `self-contained` linker that can be used to link programs in `llbc` before optimizing and compiling to native code. It will first be used internally in the Rust compiler to enable tests for the `nvptx64-nvidia-cuda` target as the original `rust-ptx-linker` is deprecated. It will then be provided to users of the `nvptx64-nvidia-cuda` target with the purpose of linking ptx. More targets than nvptx will also be supported eventually.
The PR introduces a new unstable `LinkerFlavor` for the compiler. The compiler will also not be shipped with rustc but most likely instead be shipped in it's own unstable component (a follow up PR will be opened for this). This means that merging this PR should not add any stability guarantees.
When more details of `self-contained` is implemented it will only be possible to use the linker when `-Clink-self-contained=+linker` is passed.
<details>
<summary>Original Description</summary>
**When this PR was created it was focused a bit differently. The original text is preserved here in case there's some interests in it**
I have experimenting with approaches to replace the ptx-linker and enable the nvptx target tests again. I think it's time to get some feedback on the approach.
### The problem
The only useful linker for the nvptx target is [this crate](https://github.com/denzp/rust-ptx-linker). Since this linker performs linking on llvm bitcode it needs to track the llvm version of rustc and use the same format. It has not been maintained for 3+ years and must be considered abandoned. Over the years rust have upgraded LLVM while the linker has been left to bitrot. It is no longer in a usable state.
Due to the difficulty of keeping the ptx-linker up to date outside of tree the nvptx tests was [disabled a long time ago](f8f9a2869c). It was [previously discussed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96842#issuecomment-1146470177) if adding the ptx-linker to the rust repo would be a possibility. My efforts in doing this stopped at getting an answered if the license would prohibit it from inclusion in the [Rust repo](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96842#issuecomment-1148397554). I therefore concluded that a re-write would be necessary.
### The possible solution presented here
The llvm tools know perfectly well how to link and optimize llvm bitcode. Each of them only perform a single task, and are therefore a bit cumbersome to call with the current linker approach rustc takes.
This PR adds a simple tool (current name `embedded-linker`) which can link self contained (often embedded) programs in llvm bitcode before compiling to the target format. Optimization will also be performed if lto is enabled. The rust compiler will make a single invocation to this tool, while the tool will orchestrate the many calls to the llvm tools.
### The questions
- Is having control over the nvptx linking and therefore also tests worth it to add such tool? or should the tool live outside the rust repo?
- Is the approach of calling llvm tools acceptable? Or would we want to keep the ptx-linker approach of using the llvm library? The tools seems to provide more simplicity and stability, but more intermediate files are being written. Perhaps there also are some performance penalty for the calling tools approach.
- What is the process for adding such tool? MCP?
- Does adding `llvm-link` to the llvm-tool component require any process?
- Does it require some sort of FCP to remove ptx-linker as the default linker for ptx? Or is it sufficient that using the upstream ptx-linker is broken in its current state. it is possible to use a somewhat patched version of ptx-linker.
</details>
Add metadata to targets
follow up to #121905 and #122157
This adds four pieces of metadata to every target:
- description
- tier
- host tools
- std
This information is currently scattered across target docs and both
- not machine readable, making validation harder
- sometimes subtly encoding by the table it's in, causing mistakes and making it harder to review changes to the properties
By putting it in the compiler, we improve this. Later, we will use this canonical information to generate target documentation from it.
I used find-replace for all the `description: None`.
One thing I'm not sure about is the behavior for the JSON. It doesn't really make sense that custom targets supply this information, especially the tier. But for the roundtrip tests, we do need to print and parse it. Maybe emit a warning when a custom target provides the metadata key? Either way, I don't think that's important right now, this PR should get merged ASAP or it will conflict all over the place.
r? davidtwco
Stop using LLVM struct types for byval/sret
For `byval` and `sret`, the type has no semantic meaning, only the size matters\*†. Using `[N x i8]` is a more direct way to specify that we want `N` bytes, and avoids relying on LLVM's struct layout.
\*: The alignment would matter, if we didn't explicitly specify it. From what I can tell, we always specified the alignment for `sret`; for `byval`, we didn't until #112157.
†: For `byval`, the hidden copy may be impacted by padding in the LLVM struct type, i.e. padding bytes may not be copied. (I'm not sure if this is done today, but I think it would be legal.) But we manually pad our LLVM struct types specifically to avoid there ever being LLVM-visible padding, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Split out from #121577.
r? `@nikic`
This adds four pieces of metadata to every target:
- description
- tier
- host tools
- std
This information is currently scattered across target docs and both
- not machine readable, making validation harder
- sometimes subtly encoding by the table it's in, causing mistakes and
making it harder to review changes to the properties
By putting it in the compiler, we improve this. Later, we will use this
canonical information to generate target documentation from it.
Add the new description field to Target::to_json, and add descriptions for some MSVC targets
The original PR to add a `description` field to `Target` (<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121905>) didn't add the field to `Target::to_json`, which meant that the `check_consistency` testwould fail if you tried to set a description as it wouldn't survive round-tripping via JSON: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967
This change adds the field to `Target::to_json`, and sets some descriptions to verify that it works correctly.
