There are a few tests that were trying to skip i586 targets via the `TARGET`
environment variable instead, so better to just add support for the directive.
Rework target checking for built-in attributes
This is a refactoring of target checking for built-in attributes.
This PR has the following goals:
- Only refactor the 80% of the attributes that are simple to target check. More complicated ones like `#[repr]` will be in a future PR. Tho I have written the code in such a way that this will be possible to add in the future.
- No breaking changes.
- This part of the codebase is not very well tested though, we can do a crater run if we want to be sure.
- I've spotted quite a few weird situations (like I don't think an impl block should be deprecated?). We can propose fixing these to in a future PR
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143780
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138510
I've split it in commits and left a description on some of the commits to help review.
r? `@jdonszelmann`
`tests/ui`: A New Order [25/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@tgross35`
Normally LLVM and rustc agree about what features are implied by
target-cpu, but for NVPTX, LLVM considers sm_* and ptx* features to be
exclusive, which makes sense for codegen purposes. But in Rust, we want
to think of them as:
sm_{sver} means that the target supports the hardware features of sver
ptx{pver} means the driver supports PTX ISA pver
Intrinsics usually require a minimum sm_{sver} and ptx{pver}.
Prior to this commit, -Ctarget-cpu=sm_70 would activate only sm_70 and
ptx60 (the minimum PTX version that supports sm_70, which maximizes
driver compatibility). With this commit, it also activates all the
implied target features (sm_20, ..., sm_62; ptx32, ..., ptx50).
Add target features for sm_* and ptx*, both of which form a partial
order, but cannot be combined to a single partial order. These mirror
the LLVM target features, but we do not provide LLVM target
processors (which imply both an sm_* and ptx* feature).
Add some documentation for the nvptx target.
This does change the logic a bit: previously, we didn't forward reverse
implications of negated features to the backend, instead relying on the backend
to handle the implication itself.
organize and extend forbidden target feature tests
In particular this adds some loongarch tests for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135015, Cc `@heiher`
Seems like the tests change so much git does not detect the renames; a commit-by-commit review should help.
try-job: `x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-*`
Because RISC-V Calling Conventions note that:
> This means code targeting the Zfinx extension always uses the ILP32,
> ILP32E or LP64 integer calling-convention only ABIs as there is no
> dedicated hardware floating-point register file.
{ILP32,LP64}[FD] ABIs with hardware floating-point calling conventions
are incompatible with the "Zfinx" extension.
This commit adds "zfinx" to the incompatible feature list to those ABIs
and tests whether trying to add "zdinx" (that is analogous to "zfinx" but
in double-precision) on a LP64D ABI configuration results in an error
(it also tests extension implication; "Zdinx" requires "Zfinx" extension).
Link: RISC-V psABI specification version 1.0
<https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/releases/tag/v1.0>
Emit `unused_attributes` for `#[inline]` on exported functions
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes, which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it doesn't work.
r? saethlin as the instantiation guy
Procedurally, I think this should be fine to merge without any lang involvement, as this only does a very minor extension to an existing lint.
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes,
which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the
compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is
indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol
since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an
unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too
complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want
to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying
that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still
be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this
attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it
doesn't work.
Stabilize target_feature_11
# Stabilization report
This is an updated version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116114, which is itself a redo of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!```
## Summary
Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes.
Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits.
However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe.
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() {
// Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure
// that AVX is available first.
unsafe {
avx2();
}
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() {
// Calling `avx2` here is safe.
avx2();
}
```
Moreover, once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe:
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() -> fn() {
// Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here.
avx2
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
// `avx2` coerces to fn() here
avx2
}
```
See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour.
## Test cases
Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](f6cb952dc1/tests/ui/target-feature).
## Edge cases
### Closures
* [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73631)
Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits.
```rust
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn qux() {
let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe
let f: fn() = my_closure;
}
```
This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute.
This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and:
- on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call.
- on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller.
If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again).
**Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in #73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” .
This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. 2e29bdf908/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope".
* [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 #111836](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111836)
Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility.
### ABI concerns
* [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features #116558](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558)
The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (#133102, #132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur.
### Special functions
The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods.
This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs:
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` #108645](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108645)
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations #108646](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108646)
* [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 #109411](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109411)
* [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions #115910](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115910)
## Documentation
* Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1181)
---
cc tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69098
cc ```@workingjubilee```
cc ```@RalfJung```
r? ```@rust-lang/lang```
