Do not remove trivial `SwitchInt` in analysis MIR
This PR ensures that we don't prematurely remove trivial `SwitchInt` terminators which affects both the borrow-checking and runtime semantics (i.e. UB) of the code. Previously the `SimplifyCfg` optimization was removing `SwitchInt` terminators when they was "trivial", i.e. when all arms branched to the same basic block, even if that `SwitchInt` terminator had the side-effect of reading an operand which (for example) may not be initialized or may point to an invalid place in memory.
This behavior is unlike all other optimizations, which are only applied after "analysis" (i.e. borrow-checking) is finished, and which Miri disables to make sure the compiler doesn't silently remove UB.
Fixing this code "breaks" (i.e. unmasks) code that used to borrow-check but no longer does, like:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0 | _) = x;
}
```
This match expression should perform a read because `_` does not shadow the `0` literal pattern, and the compiler should have to read the match scrutinee to compare it to 0. I've checked that this behavior does not actually manifest in practice via a crater run which came back clean: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139042#issuecomment-2767436367
As a side-note, it may be tempting to suggest that this is actually a good thing or that we should preserve this behavior. If we wanted to make this work (i.e. trivially optimize out reads from matches that are redundant like `0 | _`), then we should be enabling this behavior *after* fixing this. However, I think it's kinda unprincipled, and for example other variations of the code don't even work today, e.g.:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0.. | _) = x;
}
```
Clean UI tests 4 of n
Cleaned up some tests that have `issue` in the title. I kept the commits to be one per "`issue`" cleanup/rename to make it easier to check. I can rebase to one commit once the changes are approved.
Related Issues:
#73494#133895
r? jieyouxu
Don't assemble non-env/bound candidates if projection is rigid
Putting this up for an initial review, it's still missing comments, clean-up, and possibly a tweak to deal with ambiguities in the `BestObligation` folder.
This PR fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/173. Specifically, we're creating an unnecessary query cycle in normalization by assembling an *impl candidate* even if we know later on during `merge_candidates` that we'll be filtering out that impl candidate.
This PR adjusts the `merge_candidates` to assemble *only* env/bound candidates if we have `TraitGoalProvenVia::ParamEnv | TraitGoalProvenVia::AliasBound`.
I'll leave some thoughts/comments in the code.
r? lcnr
Rewrite on_unimplemented format string parser.
This PR rewrites the format string parser for `rustc_on_unimplemented` and `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`. I plan on moving this code (and more) into the new attribute parsing system soon and wanted to PR it separately.
This PR introduces some minor differences though:
- `rustc_on_unimplemented` on trait *implementations* is no longer checked/used - this is actually never used (outside of some tests) so I plan on removing it in the future.
- for `rustc_on_unimplemented`, it introduces the `{This}` argument in favor of `{ThisTraitname}` (to be removed later). It'll be easier to parse.
- for `rustc_on_unimplemented`, `Self` can now consistently be used as a filter, rather than just `_Self`. It used to not match correctly on for example `Self = "[{integer}]"`
- Some error messages now have better spans.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130627
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
Ignore aix for tests/ui/erros/pic-linker.rs
This test case fails on AIX because of how the linker arguments are passed. Furthermore on AIX `-z text` only works in dynamic mode, making this test case irrelevant.
deref patterns: implement implicit deref patterns
This implements implicit deref patterns (per https://hackmd.io/4qDDMcvyQ-GDB089IPcHGg#Implicit-deref-patterns) and adds tests and an unstable book chapter.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit. Overall there's a lot of additions, but a lot of that is tests, documentation, and simple(?) refactoring.
Tracking issue: #87121
r? ``@Nadrieril``
Introduce and use specialized `//@ ignore-auxiliary` for test support files instead of using `//@ ignore-test`
### Summary
Add a semantically meaningful directive for ignoring test *auxiliary* files. This is for auxiliary files that *participate* in actual tests but should not be built by `compiletest` (i.e. these files are involved through `mod xxx;` or `include!()` or `#[path = "xxx"]`, etc.).
### Motivation
A specialized directive like `//@ ignore-auxiliary` makes it way easier to audit disabled tests via `//@ ignore-test`.
- These support files cannot use the canonical `auxiliary/` dir because they participate in module resolution or are included, or their relative paths can be important for test intention otherwise.
Follow-up to:
- #139705
- #139783
- #139740
See also discussions in:
- [#t-compiler > Directive name for non-test aux files?](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/Directive.20name.20for.20non-test.20aux.20files.3F/with/512773817)
- [#t-compiler > Handling disabled `//@ ignore-test` tests](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/Handling.20disabled.20.60.2F.2F.40.20ignore-test.60.20tests/with/512005974)
- [#t-compiler/meetings > [steering] 2025-04-11 Dealing with disabled tests](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bsteering.5D.202025-04-11.20Dealing.20with.20disabled.20tests/with/511717981)
### Remarks on remaining unconditionally disabled tests under `tests/`
After this PR, against commit 79a272c640, only **14** remaining test files are disabled through `//@ ignore-test`:
<details>
<summary>Remaining `//@ ignore-test` files under `tests/`</summary>
```
tests/debuginfo/drop-locations.rs
4://@ ignore-test (broken, see #128971)
tests/rustdoc/macro-document-private-duplicate.rs
1://@ ignore-test (fails spuriously, see issue #89228)
tests/rustdoc/inline_cross/assoc-const-equality.rs
3://@ ignore-test (FIXME: #125092)
tests/ui/match/issue-27021.rs
7://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/match/issue-26996.rs
7://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/issues/issue-49298.rs
9://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/issues/issue-59756.rs
2://@ ignore-test (rustfix needs multiple suggestions)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/write.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/read.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/write_bytes.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/explicit-tail-calls/drop-order.rs
2://@ ignore-test: tail calls are not implemented in rustc_codegen_ssa yet, so this causes 🧊
tests/ui/panics/panic-short-backtrace-windows-x86_64.rs
3://@ ignore-test (#92000)
tests/ui/json/json-bom-plus-crlf-multifile-aux.rs
3://@ ignore-test Not a test. Used by other tests
tests/ui/traits/next-solver/object-soundness-requires-generalization.rs
2://@ ignore-test (see #114196)
```
</details>
Of these, most are either **unimplemented**, or **spurious**, or **known-broken**. The outstanding one is `tests/ui/json/json-bom-plus-crlf-multifile-aux.rs` which I did not want to touch in *this* PR -- that aux file has load-bearing BOM and carriage returns and byte offset matters. I think those test files that require special encoding / BOM probably are better off as `run-make` tests. See #139968 for that aux file.
### Review advice
- Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- The directive name diverged from the most voted `//@ auxiliary` because I think that's easy to confuse with `//@ aux-{crate,dir}`.
r? compiler
Ignore zero-sized types in wasm future-compat warning
This commit fixes a false positive of the warning triggered for #138762 and the fix is to codify that zero-sized types are "safe" in both the old and new ABIs.
do not emit `OpaqueCast` projections with `-Znext-solver`
We normalize opaque types in their defining scope if the new solver is enabled. This means projections do not contain any 'revealable' opaque types we need to worry about. We either have a type which has been normalized by writeback or we need to normalize it anyways.
r? ```@compiler-errors``` ```@oli-obk```
Fix replacing supertrait aliases in `ReplaceProjectionWith`
The new solver has a procedure called `predicates_for_object_candidate`, which elaborates the super-bounds and item-bounds that are required to hold for a dyn trait to implement something via a built-in object impl.
In that procedure, there is a folder called `ReplaceProjectionWith` which is responsible for replacing projections that reference `Self`, so that we don't encounter cycles when we then go on to normalize those projections in the process of proving these super-bounds.
That folder had a few problems: Firstly, it wasn't actually checking that this was a super bound originating from `Self`. Secondly, it only accounted for a *single* projection type def id, but trait objects can have multiple (i.e. `trait Foo<A, B>: Bar<A, Assoc = A> + Bar<B, Assoc = B>`).
To fix the first, it's simple enough to just add an equality check for the self ty. To fix the second, I implemented a matching step that's very similar to the `projection_may_match` check we have for upcasting, since on top of having multiple choices, we need to deal with both non-structural matches and ambiguity.
This probably lacks a bit of documentation, but I think it works pretty well.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/171
r? lcnr
This commit fixes a false positive of the warning triggered for #138762
and the fix is to codify that zero-sized types are "safe" in both the
old and new ABIs.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #135340 (Add `explicit_extern_abis` Feature and Enforce Explicit ABIs)
- #139440 (rustc_target: RISC-V: feature addition batch 2)
- #139667 (cfi: Remove #[no_sanitize(cfi)] for extern weak functions)
- #139828 (Don't require rigid alias's trait to hold)
- #139854 (Improve parse errors for stray lifetimes in type position)
- #139889 (Clean UI tests 3 of n)
- #139894 (Fix `opt-dist` CLI flag and make it work without LLD)
- #139900 (stepping into impls for normalization is unproductive)
- #139915 (replace some #[rustc_intrinsic] usage with use of the libcore declarations)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Explicitly annotate edition for `unpretty=expanded` and `unpretty=hir` tests
These emit prelude imports which means they are always edition dependent and so running them with a different `--edition` will fail.
Consistent with treating Ctor Call as Struct in liveness analysis
Fixes#139627
When `ExprKind::Call` is a `Ctor`, skips the checking of `expr` and only checks the arguments, thus being consistent with `ExprKind::Struct`.
r? compiler
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
I'm removing empty identifiers everywhere, because in practice they
always mean "no identifier" rather than "empty identifier". (An empty
identifier is impossible.) It's better to use `Option` to mean "no
identifier" because you then can't forget about the "no identifier"
possibility.
Some specifics:
- When testing an attribute for a single name, the commit uses the
`has_name` method.
- When testing an attribute for multiple names, the commit uses the new
`has_any_name` method.
- When using `match` on an attribute, the match arms now have `Some` on
them.
In the tests, we now avoid printing empty identifiers by not printing
the identifier in the `error:` line at all, instead letting the carets
point out the problem.
This shows places where the use of `name_or_empty` causes problems, i.e.
we print empty identifiers in error messages:
```
error: unrecognized field name ``
error: `` isn't a valid `#[macro_export]` argument
`#[no_sanitize()]` should be applied to a function
```
(The last one is about an attribute `#[no_sanitize("address")]`.)
The next commit will fix these.
Implicit deref patterns allow previously ill-typed programs. Make sure
they're still ill-typed without the feature gate. I've thrown in a test
for `deref!(_)` too, though it seems it refers to `deref_patterns` as a
library feature.
replace some #[rustc_intrinsic] usage with use of the libcore declarations
Better to centralize the `#[rustc_intrinsic]` declarations in libcore than have them spread across the test suite as well.
stepping into impls for normalization is unproductive
See the inline comment. This builds on the reasoning from #136824 (https://gist.github.com/lcnr/c49d887bbd34f5d05c36d1cf7a1bf5a5). Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/176.
Looking at the end of the gist:
> The only ways to project out of a constructor are the following:
> - accessing an associated item, either its type or its item bounds
> - accessing super predicates
Detecting cases where we accessing the type of an associated item is easy, it's simply when we normalize. I don't yet know how to detect whether we step out of an impl by accessing item bounds. Once we also detect these cases we should be able to soundly support arbitrary coinductive traits. Luckily this does not matter for this PR :>
r? `@compiler-errors` cc `@nikomatsakis`
Clean UI tests 3 of n
Cleaned up 2 tests in `tests/ui/numbers-arithemetic` to be more useful. One for each commit. I can squash these into one commit when approved.
Related Issues:
#73494#133895
r? jieyouxu
Improve parse errors for stray lifetimes in type position
While technically & syntactically speaking lifetimes do begin[^1] types in type contexts (this essentially excludes generic argument lists) and require a following `+` to form a complete type (`'a +` denotes a bare trait object type), the likelihood that a user meant to write a lifetime-prefixed bare trait object type in *modern* editions (Rust ≥2021) when placing a lifetime into a type context is incredibly low (they would need to add at least three tokens to turn it into a *semantically* well-formed TOT: `'a` → `dyn 'a + Trait`).
Therefore let's *lie* in modern editions (just like in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131239, a precedent if you will) by stating "*expected type, found lifetime*" in such cases which is a lot more a approachable, digestible and friendly compared to "*lifetime in trait object type must be followed by `+`*" (as added in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69760).
I've also added recovery for "ampersand-less" reference types (e.g., `'a ()`, `'a mut Ty`) in modern editions because it was trivial to do and I think it's not unlikely to occur in practice.
Fixes#133413.
[^1]: For example, in the context of decl macros, this implies that a lone `'a` always matches syntax fragment `ty` ("even if" there's a later macro matcher expecting syntax fragment `lifetime`). Rephrased, lifetimes (in type contexts) *commit* to the type parser.
Don't require rigid alias's trait to hold
See test for write-up. TL;DR is that we don't need the trait bound to hold, since we enforce it during WF.
I think this is preferable to introducing (if we even could do so) a more specific hack around coroutine interiors, higher ranked types, etc, since this is just a manifestation of more pervasive issues w/ lifetime erasure in coroutines. This just doesn't manifest in the old solver b/c it doesn't try to prove `T: Trait` holds when rigidly projecting `<T as Trait>::Assoc`.
It's pretty clear that this affects quite a few traits (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139763), so I think this needs fixing.
r? lcnr
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/177
Add `explicit_extern_abis` Feature and Enforce Explicit ABIs
The unstable `explicit_extern_abis` feature is introduced, requiring explicit ABIs in `extern` blocks. Hard errors will be enforced with this feature enabled in a future edition.
RFC rust-lang/rfcs#3722
Update #134986
parser: Remove old diagnostic notes for type ascription syntax
Type ascription syntax was removed by #109128 in 2023, so “remove this again in a few months” is long overdue.
Happily, this also reduces the amount of parser diagnostic code that cares whether the compiler is unstable.
---
See also the recent #138898, which removed some other related dead code but declined to touch the diagnostics.
It's possible that some of these parser tests are no longer useful at all, but I haven't investigated them for this PR.
hygiene: Rename semi-transparent to semi-opaque
"Semi-transparent" is just too damn long for a name, especially when used multiple times on a single line, it bothered me when working on #139083.
An optimist sees a macro as semi-opaque, a pessimist sees it as semi-transparent.
Or is it the other way round?
Add minimal x86_64-lynx-lynxos178 support.
Add minimal x86_64-lynx-lynxos178 support. It's possible to build no_std
programs with this compiler.
## 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.)
Tim Newsome (`@tnewsome-lynx)` will be the designated developer for
x86_64-lynx-lynxos178 support.
> 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.
I believe the target is named appropriately.
> 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.
The target name is not confusing.
> If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name.
Periods (.) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
Done.
> 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).
All this new code is licensed under the Apache-2.0 license.
> 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.
Done.
> 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.
I think we're in the clear here. We do link against some static libraries that
are proprietary (like libm and libc), but those are not used to generate code.
E.g. the VxWorks target requires `wr-c++` to be installed, which is not
publically available.
> "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.
Our intention is to allow anyone with access to LynxOS CDK to use Rust for it.
> 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.
No problem.
> 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.
With this first PR, only core is supported. I am working on support for the std
library and intend to submit that once all the tests are passing.
> 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.
This is documented in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/lynxos178.md`.
> 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.
As far as I know this change does not affect any other targets.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's
supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the
backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
Many targets produce assembly for x86_64 so that also works for LynxOS-178.
