There are a handful of tier 2 and tier 3 targets that cause a LLVM crash
or linker error when generating code that contains `f16` or `f128`. The
cranelift backend also does not support these types. To work around
this, every function in `std` or `core` that contains these types must
be marked `#[inline]` in order to avoid sending any code to the backend
unless specifically requested.
However, this is inconvenient and easy to forget. Introduce a check for
these types in the frontend that automatically inlines any function
signatures that take or return `f16` or `f128`.
Note that this is not a perfect fix because it does not account for the
types being passed by reference or as members of aggregate types, but
this is sufficient for what is currently needed in the standard library.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133035
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133037
CFI: Append debug location to CFI blocks
Currently we're not appending debug locations to the inserted CFI blocks. This shows up in #132615 and #100783. This change fixes that by passing down the debug location to the CFI type-test generation and appending it to the blocks.
Credits also belong to `@jakos-sec` who worked with me on this.
Stabilize s390x inline assembly
This stabilizes inline assembly for s390x (SystemZ).
Corresponding reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1643
---
From the requirements of stabilization mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93335
> Each architecture needs to be reviewed before stabilization:
> - It must have clobber_abi.
Done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630.
> - It must be possible to clobber every register that is normally clobbered by a function call.
Done in the PR that added support for clobber_abi.
> - Generally review that the exposed register classes make sense.
The followings can be used as input/output:
- `reg` (`r[0-10]`, `r[12-14]`): General-purpose register
- `reg_addr` (`r[1-10]`, `r[12-14]`): General-purpose register except `r0` which is evaluated as zero in an address context
This class is needed because `r0`, which may be allocated when using the `reg` class, cannot be used as a register in certain contexts. This is identical to the `a` constraint in LLVM and GCC. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119431 for details.
- `freg` (`f[0-15]`): Floating-point register
The followings are clobber-only:
- `vreg` (`v[0-31]`): Vector register
Technically `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input/output if the unstable `vector` target feature added is enabled, but `core::arch` has no s390x vector type and both `#[repr(simd)]` and `core::simd` are unstable. Everything related is unstable, so the fact that this is currently a clobber-only should not be considered a stabilization blocker. (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130869 tracks unstable stuff here)
- `areg` (`a[2-15]`): Access register
All of the above register classes except `reg_addr` are needed for `clobber_abi`.
The followings cannot be used as operands for inline asm (see also [getReservedRegs](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.cpp#L258-L282) and [SystemZELFRegisters](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.h#L107-L128) in LLVM):
- `r11`: frame pointer
- `r15`: stack pointer
- `a0`, `a1`: Reserved for system use
- `c[0-15]` (control register) Reserved by the kernel
Although not listed in the above requirements, `preserves_flags` is implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111331.
---
cc ``@uweigand``
r? ``@Amanieu``
``@rustbot`` label +O-SystemZ +A-inline-assembly
LLVM does not expect to ever see multiple dbg_declares for the same variable at the same
location with different values. proc-macros make it possible for arbitrary code,
including multiple calls that get inlined, to happen at any given location in the source
code. Add discriminators when that happens so these locations are different to LLVM.
This may interfere with the AddDiscriminators pass in LLVM, which is added by the
unstable flag -Zdebug-info-for-profiling.
Fixes#131944
try_question_mark_nop: update test for LLVM 20
llvm/llvm-project@dd116369f6 changes the IR of this test in a way that I don't think is bad, but needs adjusting.
r? `@nikic`
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
pointee_info_at: fix logic for recursing into enums
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131834
The logic in `pointee_info_at` was likely written at a time when the null pointer optimization was the *only* enum layout optimization -- and as `Variant::Multiple` kept getting expanded, nobody noticed that the logic is now unsound.
The job of this function is to figure out whether there is a dereferenceable-or-null and aligned pointer at a given offset inside a type. So when we recurse into a multi-variant enum, we better make sure that all the other enum variants must be null! This is the part that was forgotten, and this PR adds it.
The reason this didn't explode in many ways so far is that our references only have 1 niche value (null), so it's not possible on stable to have a multi-variant enum with a dereferenceable pointer and other enum variants that are not null. But with `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range` attributes one can force such a layout, and if `@the8472's` work on alignment niches ever lands, that will make this possible on stable.
Add `{ignore,needs}-{rustc,std}-debug-assertions` directive support
Add `{ignore,needs}-{rustc,std}-debug-assertions` compiletest directives and retire the old `{ignore,only}-debug` directives. The old `{ignore,only}-debug` directives were ambiguous because you could have std built with debug assertions but rustc not built with debug assertions or vice versa. If we want to support the use case of controlling test run based on if rustc was built with debug assertions, then having `{ignore,only}-debug` will be very confusing.
cc ````@matthiaskrgr````
Closes#123987.
r? bootstrap (or compiler tbh)
This helps with the fact that the order in which debuginfo is emitted
differs between platforms, and is probably not guaranteed to be stable
in general.
The new `is_ascii` function is optimized to use the
`pmovmskb` vector instruction which tests the high bit in a lane.
This corresponds to the same check of whether a byte is ASCII so
ASCII validity checking can be vectorized. This instruction
does not exist on other platforms so it is likely to regress performance
and is gated to all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_feature = "sse2").
Add codegen test
Remove crate::mem import for functions included in the prelude
Remove the `wasm32-wasi` target from rustc
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical `wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of `wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of `wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
rustc_codegen_llvm: Add a new 'pc' option to branch-protection
Add a new 'pc' option to -Z branch-protection for aarch64 that enables the use of PC as a diversifier in PAC branch protection code.
When the pauth-lr target feature is enabled in combination with -Z branch-protection=pac-ret,pc, the new 9.5-a instructions (pacibsppc, retaasppc, etc) will be generated.
Support clobber_abi and vector registers (clobber-only) in PowerPC inline assembly
This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.
This basically does a similar thing I did in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630 to implement `clobber_abi` for s390x, but for powerpc/powerpc64/powerpc64le.
- This also supports vector registers (as `vreg`) as clobber-only, which need to support clobbering of them to implement `clobber_abi`.
- `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input/output if the unstable `altivec` target feature is enabled, but `core::arch::{powerpc,powerpc64}` vector types, `#[repr(simd)]`, and `core::simd` are all unstable, so the fact that this is currently a clobber-only should not be considered a blocker of clobber_abi implementation or stabilization. So I have not implemented it in this PR.
- See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131551 (which is based on this PR) for a PR to implement this.
- (I'm not sticking to whether that PR should be a separate PR or part of this PR, so I can merge that PR into this PR if needed.)
Refs:
- PPC32 SysV: Section "Function Calling Sequence" in [System V Application Binary Interface PowerPC Processor Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf)
- PPC64 ELFv1: Section 3.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-bit PowerPC ELF Application Binary Interface Supplement](https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html#FUNC-CALL)
- PPC64 ELFv2: Section 2.2 "Function Calling Sequence" in [64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification](https://openpowerfoundation.org/specifications/64bitelfabi/)
- AIX: [Register usage and conventions](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-register-usage-conventions), [Special registers in the PowerPC®](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=overview-special-registers-in-powerpc), [AIX vector programming](https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=concepts-aix-vector-programming)
- Register definition in LLVM: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCRegisterInfo.td#L189
If I understand the above four ABI documentations correctly, except for the PPC32 SysV's VR (Vector Registers) and 32-bit AIX (currently not supported by rustc)'s r13, there does not appear to be important differences in terms of implementing `clobber_abi`:
- The above four ABIs are consistent about FPR (0-13: volatile, 14-31: nonvolatile), CR (0-1,5-7: volatile, 2-4: nonvolatile), XER (volatile), and CTR (volatile).
- As for GPR, only the registers we are treating as reserved are slightly different
- r0, r3-r12 are volatile
- r1(sp, reserved), r14-31 are nonvolatile
- r2(reserved) is TOC pointer in PPC64 ELF/AIX, system-reserved register in PPC32 SysV (AFAIK used as thread pointer in Linux/BSDs)
- r13(reserved for non-32-bit-AIX) is thread pointer in PPC64 ELF, small data area pointer register in PPC32 SysV, "reserved under 64-bit environment; not restored across system calls[^r13]" in AIX)
- As for FPSCR, volatile in PPC64 ELFv1/AIX, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv2.
- As for VR (Vector Registers), it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, v0-v19 are volatile in both in PPC64 ELF/AIX, v20-v31 are nonvolatile in PPC64 ELF, reserved or nonvolatile depending on the ABI ([vec-extabi vs vec-default in LLVM](https://reviews.llvm.org/D89684), we are [using vec-extabi](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1797693299)) in AIX:
> When the default Vector enabled mode is used, these registers are reserved and must not be used.
> In the extended ABI vector enabled mode, these registers are nonvolatile and their values are preserved across function calls
I left [FIXME comment about PPC32 SysV](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131341#discussion_r1790496095) and added ABI check for AIX.
- As for VRSAVE, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV, nonvolatile in PPC64 ELFv1, reserved in PPC64 ELFv2/AIX
- As for VSCR, it is not mentioned in PPC32 SysV/PPC64 ELFv1, some fields are volatile only in certain situations (rest are volatile) in PPC64 ELFv2, volatile in AIX
We are currently treating r1-r2, r13 (non-32-bit-AIX), r29-r31, LR, CTR, and VRSAVE as reserved.
We are currently not processing anything about FPSCR and VSCR, but I feel those are things that should be processed by `preserves_flags` rather than `clobber_abi` if we need to do something about them. (However, PPCRegisterInfo.td in LLVM does not seem to define anything about them.)
Replaces #111335 and #124279
cc `@ecnelises` `@bzEq` `@lu-zero`
r? `@Amanieu`
`@rustbot` label +O-PowerPC +A-inline-assembly
[^r13]: callee-saved, according to [LLVM](6a6af0246b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCCallingConv.td (L322)) and [GCC](a9173a50e7/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h (L859)).
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical
`wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various
steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is
summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of
`wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have
already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of
`wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before
the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the
source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical
reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
AddressSanitizer adds instrumentation to global variables unless the
[`no_sanitize_address`](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#global-attributes)
attribute is set on them.
This commit extends the existing `#[no_sanitize(address)]` attribute to
set this; previously it only had the desired effect on functions.
Add a Few Codegen Tests
Closes#86109Closes#64219
Those issues somehow got fixed over time.
So, this PR adds a couple of codegen tests to ensure we don't regress in the future.
Mark `simplify_aggregate_to_copy` mir-opt as unsound
Mark the `simplify_aggregate_to_copy` mir-opt added in #128299 as unsound as it seems to miscompile the MCVE reported in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132353. The mir-opt can be re-enabled once this case is fixed.
```rs
fn pop_min(mut score2head: Vec<Option<usize>>) -> Option<usize> {
loop {
if let Some(col) = score2head[0] {
score2head[0] = None;
return Some(col);
}
}
}
fn main() {
let min = pop_min(vec![Some(1)]);
println!("min: {:?}", min);
// panic happens here on beta in release mode
// but not in debug mode
min.unwrap();
}
```
This MCVE is included as a `run-pass` ui regression test in the first commit. I built the ui test with a nightly manually, and can reproduce the behavioral difference with `-C opt-level=0` and `-C opt-level=1`. Locally, this ui test will fail unless it was run on a compiler built with the second commit marking the mir-opt as unsound thus disabling it by default.
This PR **partially reverts** commit e7386b3, reversing changes made to 02b1be1. The mir-opt implementation is just marked as unsound but **not** reverted to make reland reviews easier. Test changes are **reverted if they were not pure additions**. Tests added by the original PR received `-Z unsound-mir-opts` compile-flags.
cc `@DianQK` `@cjgillot` (PR author and reviewer of #128299)
Add a new 'pc' option to -Z branch-protection for aarch64 that
enables the use of PC as a diversifier in PAC branch protection code.
When the pauth-lr target feature is enabled in combination
with -Z branch-protection=pac-ret,pc, the new 9.5-a instructions
(pacibsppc, retaasppc, etc) will be generated.
