Support input/output in vector registers of s390x inline assembly (under asm_experimental_reg feature)
This extends currently clobber-only vector registers (`vreg`) support to allow passing `#[repr(simd)]` types, floats (f32/f64/f128), and integers (i32/i64/i128) as input/output.
This is unstable and gated under new `#![feature(asm_experimental_reg)]` (tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133416). If the feature is not enabled, only clober is supported as before.
| Architecture | Register class | Target feature | Allowed types |
| ------------ | -------------- | -------------- | -------------- |
| s390x | `vreg` | `vector` | `i32`, `f32`, `i64`, `f64`, `i128`, `f128`, `i8x16`, `i16x8`, `i32x4`, `i64x2`, `f32x4`, `f64x2` |
This matches the list of types that are supported by the vector registers in LLVM:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L301-L313
In addition to `core::simd` types and floats listed above, custom `#[repr(simd)]` types of the same size and type are also allowed. All allowed types other than i32/f32/i64/f64/i128, and relevant target features are currently unstable.
Currently there is no SIMD type for s390x in `core::arch`, but this is tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130869.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130869 about vector facility support in s390x
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125398 & https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909 about f128 support in asm
`@rustbot` label +O-SystemZ +A-inline-assembly
When labels are present, the `noreturn` option really means that asm block
won't fallthrough -- if labels are present, then outputs can still be
meaningfully used.
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)).
`asm!()` is forced to be wrapped inside unsafe. If there's no special
treatment, the label blocks would also always be unsafe with no way
of opting out.
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions
These tests recently got changed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate.
So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one.
Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](0d88631059) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
Fix error span if arg to `asm!()` is a macro call
Fixes#129503
When the argument to `asm!()` is a macro call, e.g. `asm!(concat!("abc", "{} pqr"))`, and there's an error in the resulting template string, we do not take into account the presence of this macro call while computing the error span. This PR fixes that. Now we will use the entire thing between the parenthesis of `asm!()` as the error span in this situation e.g. for `asm!(concat!("abc", "{} pqr"))` the error span will be `concat!("abc", "{} pqr")`.
When the template string passed to asm!() is produced by
a macro call like concat!() we were producing wrong error
spans. Now in the case of a macro call we just use the entire
arg to asm!(), macro call and all, as the error span.
in this commit, `naked_asm!` is an alias for `asm!` with one difference: `options(noreturn)` is always enabled by `naked_asm!`. That makes it future-compatible for when `naked_asm!` starts disallowing `options(noreturn)` later.
add repr to the allowlist for naked functions
Fixes#129412 (combining unstable features #90957 (`#![feature(naked_functions)]`) and #82232 (`#![feature(fn_align)]`)
Tweak type inference for `const` operands in inline asm
Previously these would be treated like integer literals and default to `i32` if a type could not be determined. To allow for forward-compatibility with `str` constants in the future, this PR changes type inference to use an unbound type variable instead.
The actual type checking is deferred until after typeck where we still ensure that the final type for the `const` operand is an integer type.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` operands
follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128207
what was
```
error: expected expression, found keyword `in`
--> src/lib.rs:1:31
|
1 | core::arch::global_asm!("{}", in(reg));
| ^^ expected expression
```
becomes
```
error: the `in` operand cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/parse-error.rs:150:19
|
LL | global_asm!("{}", in(reg));
| ^^ the `in` operand is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly, remove it
```
the span of the error is just the keyword, which means that we can't create a machine-applicable suggestion here. The alternative would be to attempt to parse the full operand, but then if there are syntax errors in the operand those would be presented to the user, even though the parser already knows that the output won't be valid. Also that would require more complexity in the parser.
So I think this is a nice improvement at very low cost.
`#[naked]`: report incompatible attributes
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is a re-implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93809 by ``@bstrie`` which was closed 2 years ago due to inactivity.
This PR takes some of the final comments into account, specifically providing a little more context in error messages, and using an allow list to determine which attributes are compatible with `#[naked]`.
Notable attributes that are incompatible with `#[naked]` are:
* `#[inline]`
* `#[track_caller]`
* ~~`#[target_feature]`~~ (this is now allowed, see PR discussion)
* `#[test]`, `#[ignore]`, `#[should_panic]`
These attributes just directly conflict with what `#[naked]` should do.
Naked functions are still important for systems programming, embedded, and operating systems, so I'd like to move them forward.
