This option tells LLVM to emit relaxable relocation types
R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX/R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX/R_386_GOT32X in applicable cases. True
matches Clang's CMake default since 2020-08 [1] and latest LLVM default[2].
This also works around a GNU ld<2.41 issue[3] when using
general-dynamic/local-dynamic TLS models in `-Z plt=no` mode with latest LLVM.
[1]: c41a18cf61
[2]: 2aedfdd9b8
[3]: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24784
Replace the \01__gnu_mcount_nc to LLVM intrinsic for ARM
Current `-Zinstrument-mcount` for ARM32 use the `\01__gnu_mcount_nc` directly for its instrumentation function.
However, the LLVM does not use this mcount function directly, but it wraps it to intrinsic, `llvm.arm.gnu.eabi.mcount` and the transform pass also only handle the intrinsic.
As a result, current `-Zinstrument-mcount` not work on ARM32. Refer: https://github.com/namhyung/uftrace/issues/1764
This commit replaces the mcount name from native function to the LLVM intrinsic so that the transform pass can handle it.
Current `-Zinstrument-mcount` for ARM32 use the `\01__gnu_mcount_nc`
directly for its instrumentation function.
However, the LLVM does not use this mcount function directly, but it wraps
it to intrinsic, `llvm.arm.gnu.eabi.mcount` and the transform pass also
only handle the intrinsic.
As a result, current `-Zinstrument-mcount` not work on ARM32.
Refer: https://github.com/namhyung/uftrace/issues/1764
This commit replaces the mcount name from native function to the
LLVM intrinsic so that the transform pass can handle it.
Signed-off-by: ChoKyuWon <kyuwoncho18@gmail.com>
Infer `Lld::No` linker hint when the linker stem is a generic compiler driver
This PR basically reverts the temporary solution in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113631 to a more long-term solution.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
In [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113631#issuecomment-1634598238), you had ideas about a long-term solution:
> I wonder what a good non-temporary solution for the inference would look like.
>
> * If the default is `(Cc::No, Lld::Yes)` (e.g. `rust-lld`)
>
> * and we switch to some specific platform compiler (e.g. `-C linker=arm-none-eabi-gcc`), should we change to `Lld::No`? Maybe yes?
> * and we switch to some non-default but generic compiler `-C linker=clang`? Then maybe not?
>
> * If the default is `(Cc::Yes, Lld::Yes)` (e.g. future x86_64 linux with default LLD)
>
> * and we switch to some specific platform compiler (e.g. `-C linker=arm-none-eabi-gcc`), should we change to `Lld::No`? Maybe yes?
> * and we switch to some non-default but generic compiler `-C linker=clang`? Then maybe not?
>
I believe that we should infer the `Lld::No` linker hint for any `-Clinker` override, and all the cases above:
- the linker drivers have their own defaults, so in my mind `-Clinker` is a signal to use its default linker / flavor, rather than ours or the target's. In the case of generic compilers, it's more likely than not going to be `Lld::No`. I would expect this to be the case in general, even when including platform-specific compilers.
- the guess will be wrong if the linker driver uses lld by default (and we also don't want to search for `-fuse-ld` link args), but will work in the more common cases. And the minority of other cases can fix the wrong guess by opting into the precise linker flavor.
- this also ensures backwards-compatibility: today, even on targets with an lld default and overriding the linker, rustc will not use lld. That includes `thumbv6m-none-eabi` where issue #113597 happened.
It looks like the simplest option, and the one with least churn: we maintain the current behavior in ambiguous cases.
I've tested that this works on #113597, as expected from the failure.
(I also have a no-std `run-make` test using a custom target json spec: basically simulating a future `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` using an lld flavor by default, to check that e.g. `-Clinker=clang` doesn't use lld. I could add that test to this PR, but IIUC such a custom target requires `cargo -Z build-std` and we have no tests depending on this cargo feature yet. Let me know if you want to add this test of the linker inference for such targets.)
What do you think ?
Switch to LLD as default linker for loongarch64-unknown-none*
The [LLD already supports LoongArch](6084ee7420), it's time to switch to LLD as default linker for `loongarch64-unknown-none*`.
feat: `riscv-interrupt-{m,s}` calling conventions
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's [`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to [the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets
this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's
[`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling
e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking
visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to
be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack
frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the
registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best
context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it
knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an
implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every
register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt
handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after
its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes
no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For
a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to
[the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM
does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention
directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for
differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be
aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode
interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed
through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no
appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
add aarch64-unknown-teeos target
TEEOS is a mini os run in TrustZone, for trusted/security apps. The libc of TEEOS is a part of musl. The kernel of TEEOS is micro kernel.
This MR is to add a target for teeos.
MRs for libc and rust-std are in progress.
Compiler team MCP: [MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/652)
Re-enable atomic loads and stores for all RISC-V targets
This roughly reverts PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66548
Atomic "CAS" are still disabled for targets without the *“A” Standard Extension for Atomic Instructions*. However this extension only adds instructions for operations more complex than simple loads and stores, which are always atomic when aligned.
In the [Unprivileged Spec v. 20191213](https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/) section 2.6 *Load and Store Instructions* of chapter 2 *RV32I Base Integer Instruction Set* (emphasis mine):
> Even when misaligned loads and stores complete successfully, these accesses might run extremely slowly depending on the implementation (e.g., when implemented via an invisible trap). Further-more, whereas **naturally aligned loads and stores are guaranteed to execute atomically**, misaligned loads and stores might not, and hence require additional synchronization to ensure atomicity.
Unfortunately PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66548 did not provide much details on the bug that motivated it, but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66240 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85736 appear related and happen with targets that do have the A extension.
It lints against features that are inteded to be internal to the
compiler and standard library. Implements MCP #596.
We allow `internal_features` in the standard library and compiler as those
use many features and this _is_ the standard library from the "internal to the compiler and
standard library" after all.
Marking some features as internal wasn't exactly the most scientific approach, I just marked some
mostly obvious features. While there is a categorization in the macro,
it's not very well upheld (should probably be fixed in another PR).
We always pass `-Ainternal_features` in the testsuite
About 400 UI tests and several other tests use internal features.
Instead of throwing the attribute on each one, just always allow them.
There's nothing wrong with testing internal features^^
WASI threads, implementation of wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads target
This PR adds a target proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/574 by `@abrown` and implementation of `std:🧵:spawn` for the target `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads`
### Tier 3 Target Policy
As tier 3 targets, the new targets are required to adhere to [the tier 3 target policy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#tier-3-target-policy) requirements. This section quotes each requirement in entirety and describes how they are met.
> - 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/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922/files#diff-a48ee9d94f13e12be24eadd08eb47b479c153c340eeea4ef22276d876dfd4f3e).
> - 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.
The target is using the same name for $ARCH=wasm32 and $OS=wasi as existing Rust targets. The suffix `preview1` introduced to accurately set expectations because eventually this target will be deprecated and follows [MCP 607](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/607). The suffix `threads` indicates that it’s an extension that enables threads to the existing target and it follows [MCP 574](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/574) which describes the rationale behind introducing a separate 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.
> - 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 be subject 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 PR does not introduce any new dependency.
The new target doesn’t support building host tools.
> 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 full standard library is available for this target as it’s an extension to an existing target that has already supported it.
> 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.
Only manual test running is supported at the moment with some tweaks in the test runner codebase. For build and running tests see [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922/files#diff-a48ee9d94f13e12be24eadd08eb47b479c153c340eeea4ef22276d876dfd4f3e).
> - 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 they are met.
Add `x86_64-unikraft-linux-musl` target
This introduces `x86_64-unikraft-linux-musl` as the first Rust target for the [Unikraft] Unikernel Development Kit.
[Unikraft]: https://unikraft.org/
Unikraft imitates Linux and uses musl as libc.
It is extremely configurable, and does not even provide a `poll` implementation or a network stack, unless enabled by the end user who compiles the application.
Our approach for integrating the build process with `rustc` is to hide the build process as well as the actual final linking step behind a linker-shim (`kraftld`, see https://github.com/unikraft/kraftkit/issues/612).
## Tier 3 target 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.
> - 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.
The target name `x86_64-unikraft-linux-musl` was derived from `x86_64-unknown-linux-musl`, setting Unikraft as vendor.
Unikraft exactly imitates Linux + musl.
> - 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 be
> subject 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.
No dependencies were added to Rust.
Requirements for linking are [Unikraft] and [KraftKit] (both BSD-3-Clause), but none of these are added to Rust.
[KraftKit]: https://github.com/unikraft/kraftkit
> - 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.
Understood.
I am not a member of a Rust team.
> - 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.
Understood.
`std` is supported.
> - 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 the platform support doc.
It will be updated once proper `kraftld` support has landed.
> - 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.
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.
> - 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 don't think this PR breaks anything.
r? compiler-team
arm-none fixups
- Remove "-unknown" from `llvm_target` for arm\*v7r-none-eabi\* targets.
- Remove redundant `c_enum_min_bits` option from the thumbv4t-none-eabi target.
- Fix comments about GCC/Clang's enum width for arm-none targets.
Previously part of #110482, which is a larger change to add a new target.
These nits were found along the way.
These pre-link args are remains from Hermit's old C version.
We don't need them and we have no reason to override the defaults here.
See ld [1] for details.
[1]: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Options.html
Signed-off-by: Martin Kröning <martin.kroening@eonerc.rwth-aachen.de>
GCC uses the `-fshort-enums` ABI for arm-none and the `int`-sized enum
ABI for arm-linux.
Clang uses the `int`-sized enum ABI for all arm targets.
Both options are permitted by AAPCS.
Rust is matching GCC's behavior for these targets, as interop with code
code compiled by GCC is desirable in the bare-metal context. See #87917.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #113887 (new solver: add a separate cache for coherence)
- #113910 (Add FnPtr ty to SMIR)
- #113913 (error/E0691: include alignment in error message)
- #113914 (rustc_target: drop duplicate code)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Drop duplicate helper methods on `Layout`, which are already implemented
on `LayoutS`. Note that `Layout` has a `Deref` implementation to
`LayoutS`, so all accessors are automatically redirected.
The methods are identical and have been copied to `rustc_abi` in:
commit 390a637e29
Author: hamidreza kalbasi <hamidrezakalbasi@protonmail.com>
Date: Mon Nov 7 00:36:11 2022 +0330
move things from rustc_target::abi to rustc_abi
This commit left behind the original implementation. Drop it now.
Signed-off-by: David Rheinsberg <david@readahead.eu>
