Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function
This fixes a long sequence of issues:
1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: #138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2872448443>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: #140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2881867433>. At that point, my original change was reverted (#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.
Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.
Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.
There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.
There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).
Build with this change applied BEFORE #140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>
Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for #128602)
r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function
This fixes a long sequence of issues:
1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: #138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2872448443>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: #140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2881867433>. At that point, my original change was reverted (#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.
Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.
Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.
There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.
There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).
Build with this change applied BEFORE #140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>
Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for #128602)
r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function
This fixes a long sequence of issues:
1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: #138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2872448443>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: #140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2881867433>. At that point, my original change was reverted (#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.
Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.
Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.
There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.
There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).
Build with this change applied BEFORE #140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>
Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for #128602)
r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
This message is no longer generated.
This is probably a good thing. The relevant span is entirely in user
code, and "format_args_nl" is an implementation detail with a name that
isn't even public.
Rewrite `inline` attribute parser to use new infrastructure and improve diagnostics for all parsed attributes
r? `@oli-obk`
This PR:
- creates a new parser for inline attributes
- creates consistent error messages and error codes between attribute parsers; inline and others
- as such changes a few error messages for other attributes to be (in my eyes) much more consistent
- tests ast-lowering lints introduced by rust-lang/rust#138164 since this is now useful for the first time
- Coalesce some useless error codes
Builds on top of rust-lang/rust#138164Closesrust-lang/rust#137950
Rewrite `inline` attribute parser to use new infrastructure and improve diagnostics for all parsed attributes
r? `@oli-obk`
This PR:
- creates a new parser for inline attributes
- creates consistent error messages and error codes between attribute parsers; inline and others
- as such changes a few error messages for other attributes to be (in my eyes) much more consistent
- tests ast-lowering lints introduced by rust-lang/rust#138164 since this is now useful for the first time
- Coalesce some useless error codes
Builds on top of rust-lang/rust#138164Closesrust-lang/rust#137950
Safer implementation of RepeatN
I've seen the "Use MaybeUninit for RepeatN" commit while reading This Week In Rust and immediately thought about something I've written some time ago - https://github.com/Soveu/repeat_finite/blob/master/src/lib.rs.
Using the fact, that `Option` will find niche in `(T, NonZeroUsize)`, we can construct something that has the same size as `(T, usize)` while completely getting rid of `MaybeUninit`.
This leaves only `unsafe` on `TrustedLen`, which is pretty neat.
Another refactor pulled out from 138759
The previous implementation I'd written here based on `index_by_increasing_offset` is complicated to follow and difficult to extend to non-structs.
This changes the implementation, without actually changing any codegen (thus no test changes either), to be more like the existing `extract_field` (<2b0274c71d/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/operand.rs (L345-L425)>) in that it allows setting a particular field directly.
Notably I've found this one much easier to get right, in particular because having the `OperandRef<Result<V, Scalar>>` gives a really useful thing to include in ICE messages if something did happen to go wrong.
This recently spuriously failed in a rollup, so I think we can afford to
increase the base timeout and the amount of time slept for to provide
a much wider margin for the timeout to be reached.
Temporarily add back -Zwasm-c-abi=spec
This allows a more gradual transition path for projects that need to use use the spec-complaint C ABI both with older and newer rustc versions.
Update cargo
6 commits in fc1518ef02b77327d70d4026b95ea719dd9b8c51..2251525ae503fa196f6d7f9ce6d32eccb2d5f044
2025-06-06 04:49:44 +0000 to 2025-06-16 22:01:27 +0000
- feat: Add custom completer for `cargo remove <TAB>` (rust-lang/cargo#15662)
- chore(deps): update msrv (3 versions) to v1.85 (rust-lang/cargo#15668)
- refactor: replace InternedString with Cow in IndexPackage (rust-lang/cargo#15559)
- highlight the correct words (rust-lang/cargo#15659)
- CHANGELOG.md: typo (rust-lang/cargo#15660)
- Use `Not::not` rather than a custom `is_false` function (rust-lang/cargo#15645)
Refresh module-level docs for `rustc_target::spec`
We have long since gone on a curveball from the flexible-target-specification RFC by introducing stability and soundness promises to the language and compiler which we often struggle with extending to target-specific implementation details. Indeed, we often *literally cannot*. We also have modified the search algorithm details. Update the comments for `rustc_target::spec` considerably.
Don't unwrap in enzyme builds in case of missing llvm-config
r? `@onur-ozkan`
For some reason x.py was now panicking in this location, so I also removed the unwrap here.
part 2 of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140000, there shouldn't be other locations where we check for llvm-config.
