Suggest Upgrading Compiler for Gated Features
This PR addresses #117318
I have a few questions:
1. Do we want to specify the current version and release date of the compiler? I have added this in via environment variables, which I found in the code for the rustc cli where it handles the `--version` flag
a. How can I handle the changing message in the tests?
3. Do we want to only show this message when the compiler is old?
a. How can we determine when the compiler is old?
I'll wait until we figure out the message to bless the tests
Restore `#![no_builtins]` crates participation in LTO.
After #113716, we can make `#![no_builtins]` crates participate in LTO again.
`#![no_builtins]` with LTO does not result in undefined references to the error. I believe this type of issue won't happen again.
Fixes#72140. Fixes#112245. Fixes#110606. Fixes#105734. Fixes#96486. Fixes#108853. Fixes#108893. Fixes#78744. Fixes#91158. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/10118. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/issues/347.
The `nightly-2023-07-20` version does not always reproduce problems due to changes in compiler-builtins, core, and user code. That's why this issue recurs and disappears.
Some issues were not tested due to the difficulty of reproducing them.
r? pnkfelix
cc `@bjorn3` `@japaric` `@alexcrichton` `@Amanieu`
Enable Rust to use the EHCont security feature of Windows
In the future Windows will enable Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET aka Shadow Stacks). To protect the path where the context is updated during exception handling, the binary is required to enumerate valid unwind entrypoints in a dedicated section which is validated when the context is being set during exception handling.
The required support for EHCONT Guard has already been merged into LLVM, long ago. This change simply adds the Rust codegen option to enable it.
Relevant LLVM change: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40223
This also adds a new `ehcont-guard` option to the bootstrap config which enables EHCont Guard when building std.
We at Microsoft have been using this feature for a significant period of time; we are confident that the LLVM feature, when enabled, generates well-formed code.
We currently enable EHCONT using a codegen feature, but I'm certainly open to refactoring this to be a target feature instead, or to use any appropriate mechanism to enable it.
In the future Windows will enable Control-flow Enforcement Technology
(CET aka Shadow Stacks). To protect the path where the context is
updated during exception handling, the binary is required to enumerate
valid unwind entrypoints in a dedicated section which is validated when
the context is being set during exception handling.
The required support for EHCONT has already been merged into LLVM,
long ago. This change adds the Rust codegen option to enable it.
Reference:
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D40223
This also adds a new `ehcont-guard` option to the bootstrap config which
enables EHCont Guard when building std.
Remove asmjs
Fulfills [MCP 668](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/668).
`asmjs-unknown-emscripten` does not work as-specified, and lacks essential upstream support for generating asm.js, so it should not exist at all.
It was stabilized as `-C strip` in November 2021. The unstable option
was kept around as a temporary measure to ease the transition. Two years
is more than enough!
tvOS simulator support on Apple Silicon for rustc
Closes or is a subtask of #115692.
# 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-tvos.md`](4ab4d48ee5/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.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` (I think `sim` is the ABI here) which is matches the iOS apple silicon simulator (`aarch64-apple-ios-sim`). [There is some discussion about renaming some apple simulator targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115692#issuecomment-1712931910) to match the `-sim` suffix but that is outside the scope of this PR.
> * 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 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 implements as much of the standard library as the other tvOS targets do.
> * 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.
I have added the target to the other tvOS targets in [`src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.md`](4ab4d48ee5/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-tvos.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.
Allow target specs to use an LLD flavor, and self-contained linking components
This PR allows:
- target specs to use an LLD linker-flavor: this is needed to switch `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to using LLD, and is currently not possible because the current flavor json serialization fails to roundtrip on the modern linker-flavors. This can e.g. be seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115622#discussion_r1321312880 which explains where an `Lld::Yes` is ultimately deserialized into an `Lld::No`.
- target specs to declare self-contained linking components: this is needed to switch `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to using `rust-lld`
- adds an end-to-end test of a custom target json simulating `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` being switched to using `rust-lld`
- disables codegen backends from participating because they don't support `-Zgcc-ld=lld` which is the basis of mcp510.
r? `@petrochenkov:` if the approach discussed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115622#discussion_r1329403467 and on zulip would work for you: basically, see if we can emit only modern linker flavors in the json specs, but accept both old and new flavors while reading them, to fix the roundtrip issue.
The backwards compatible `LinkSelfContainedDefault` variants are still serialized and deserialized in `crt-objects-fallback`, while the spec equivalent of e.g. `-Clink-self-contained=+linker` is serialized into a different json object (with future-proofing to incorporate `crt-objects-fallback` in the future).
---
I've been test-driving this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113382 to test actually switching `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` to `rust-lld` (and fix what needs to be fixed in CI, bootstrap, etc), and it seems to work fine.
Chrome links .rlibs with /WHOLEARCHIVE or -Wl,--whole-archive to prevent
the linker from discarding static initializers. This works well, except
on Windows x86, where lld complains:
error: /safeseh: lib.rmeta is not compatible with SEH
The fix is simply to mark the .rmeta as SAFESEH aware. This is trivially
true, since the metadata file does not contain any executable code.
Removes the backwards-compatible `LinkSelfContainedDefault`, by
incorporating the remaining specifics into `LinkSelfContained`.
Then renames the modern options to keep the old name.
After #113716, we can make `#![no_builtins]` crates participate in LTO again.
`#![no_builtins]` with LTO does not result in undefined references to the error.
Currently, combining +bundle and +whole-archive works only with
#![feature(packed_bundled_libs)]
This crate feature is independent of the -Zpacked-bundled-libs
command line option.
This commit stabilizes the #![feature(packed_bundled_libs)] crate
feature and implicitly enables it only when the +bundle and
+whole-archive link modifiers are combined. This allows rlib
crates to use the +whole-archive link modifier with native
libraries and have all symbols included in the linked library
to be included in downstream staticlib crates that use the rlib as
a dependency. Other cases requiring the packed_bundled_libs
behavior still require the -Zpacked-bundled-libs command line
option, which can be stabilized independently in the future.
Per discussion on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108081
there is no risk of regression stabilizing the crate feature in
this way because the combination of +bundle,+whole-archive link
modifiers was previously not allowed.
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 ?
