Support configuring the set of codegen backends to build per host triple
This allows building the compiler itself with one backend while using another backend at runtime. For example this allows compiling rustc to wasm using LLVM, while using Cranelift at runtime to produce actual code. Cranelift can't compile to wasm, but is perfectly capable of running on wasm. LLVM can compile to wasm, but can't run on wasm. [^1]
[^1]: The prototype of this still requires a couple of other patches.
always run `configure_linker` except for mir-opt tests
`configure_linker` now runs consistently unless it's for mir-opt tests. Previously `!= "check"` condition was causing dirt in the cargo cache between runs of `x anything-but-not-check` and `x check`.
Fixes#120768
cc `@saethlin`
Introducing a new config for this purpose as NetBSD 9 or 8 will be still around
for a good while. For now, we re finally enabling sys::unix::rand::getrandom.
fix `llvm_out` to use the correct LLVM root
When `download-ci-llvm` is enabled, `llvm_out` ends up with the
error below due to an incorrect path on cross-compilations. This change fixes that.
```sh
failed to execute command: "/rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/llvm/build/bin/llvm-config" "--version"
ERROR: No such file or directory (os error 2)
```
When launching tests with --keep-stage option, startup objects
such as rsbegin.o an rsend.o may disappear from the corresponding
stageN compiler.
Fix issue #120784
`configure_linker` now runs consistently unless it's for mir-opt tests.
Previously `!= "check"` condition was causing dirt in the cargo cache between
runs of `x anything-but-not-check` and `x check`
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
When `download-ci-llvm` is enabled, `llvm_out` ends up with the
error below due to an incorrect path on cross-compilations. This change fixes that.
```
failed to execute command: "/rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/llvm/build/bin/llvm-config" "--version"
ERROR: No such file or directory (os error 2)
```
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Revert outdated version of "Add the wasm32-wasi-preview2 target"
An outdated version of #119616 was merged in rollup #120309.
This reverts those changes to enable #119616 to “retain the intended diff” after a rebase.
```@rylev``` has agreed that this would be the cleanest approach with respect to the history.
Unblocks #119616.
r? ```@petrochenkov``` or compiler or libs
Add instructions of how to use pre-vendored 'rustc-src'
This PR closes#110163.
I had to move the URL to the left, making it not aligned as it is three lines above, but the tidy check would yell at me otherwise. If that's not acceptable, I'd love some suggestions on how to make it better.
One question: in the original issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110163#issuecomment-1502647562), it was suggested to mention how to download specific commit tarballs; however, it was said it's not documented anywhere, so I did not include that yet. If there is a want to have that, I'd gladly amend the commit.
llvm: change data layout bug to an error and make it trigger more
Fixes#33446.
Don't skip the inconsistent data layout check for custom LLVMs or non-built-in targets.
With #118708, all targets will have a simple test that would trigger this error if LLVM's data layouts do change - so data layouts would be corrected during the LLVM upgrade. Therefore, with builtin targets, this error won't happen with our LLVM because each target will have been confirmed to work. With non-builtin targets, this error is probably useful to have because you can change the data layout in your target and if it is wrong then that could lead to bugs.
When using a custom LLVM, the same justification makes sense for non-builtin targets as with our LLVM, the user can update their target to match their LLVM and that's probably a good thing to do. However, with a custom LLVM, the user cannot change the builtin target data layouts if they don't match - though given that the compiler's data layout is used for layout computation and a bunch of other things - you could get some bugs because of the mismatch and probably want to know about that. I'm not sure if this is something that people do and is okay, but I doubt it?
`CFG_LLVM_ROOT` was also always set during local development with `download-ci-llvm` so this bug would never trigger locally.
In #33446, two points are raised:
- In the issue itself, changing this from a `bug!` to a proper error is what is suggested, by using `isCompatibleDataLayout` from LLVM, but that function still just does the same thing that we do and check for equality, so I've avoided the additional code necessary to do that FFI call.
- `@Mark-Simulacrum` suggests a different check is necessary to maintain backwards compatibility with old LLVM versions. I don't know how often this comes up, but we can do that with some simple string manipulation + LLVM version checks as happens already for LLVM 17 just above this diff.
This allows building the compiler itself with one backend while using
another backend at runtime. For example this allows compiling rustc to
wasm using LLVM, while using Cranelift at runtime to produce actual
code. Cranelift can't compile to wasm, but is perfectly capable of
running on wasm. LLVM can compile to wasm, but can't run on wasm. [^1]
[^1]: The prototype of this still requires a couple of other patches.
riscv32im-risc0-zkvm-elf: add target
This pull request adds RISC Zero's Zero Knowledge Virtual Machine (zkVM) as a target for rust. The zkVM used to produce proofs of execution of RISC-V ELF binaries. In order to do this, the target will execute the ELF to generate a receipt containing the output of the computation along with a cryptographic seal. This receipt can be verified to ensure the integrity of the computation and its result. This target is implemented as software only; it has no hardware implementation.
## Tier 3 target policy:
Here is a copy of the tier 3 target policy:
> 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 proposed new tier 3 target must be reviewed and approved by a member of the
> compiler team based on these requirements. The reviewer may choose to gauge
> broader compiler team consensus via a [[Major Change Proposal (MCP)](https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/mcp.html)](https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/mcp.html).
>
> A proposed target or target-specific patch that substantially changes code
> shared with other targets (not just target-specific code) must be reviewed and
> approved by the appropriate team for that shared code before acceptance.
>
> - 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.)
The maintainers are named in the target description file
> - 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.
>
We understand.
> - 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.
We understand and will not introduce incompatibilities. All of our code that we publish is licensed under Apache-2.0.
> - Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
We understand. We are open to either license for the Rust repository.
> - 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.
We understand. The runtime libraries and the execution environment and software associated with this environment uses `Apache-2.0` so this should not be an issue.
> - 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.
We understand. We only depend on FOSS libraries. Dependencies such as runtime libraries for this target are licensed as `Apache-2.0`.
> - "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.
There are no such terms present
> - 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.
I am not the reviewer of this pull request
> - 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.
We understand.
> - 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.
The target implements core and alloc. And std support is currently experimental as some functionalities in std are either a) not applicable to our target or b) more work in research and experimentation needs to be done. For more information about the characteristics of this target, please refer to the target description file.
> - 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.
See file target description file
> - 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.
We understand.
> - 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.
We understand.
> - 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.
We understand.
> If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers
> no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and
> has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality
> of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed
> to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously
> worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation.
We understand.
This also adds changes in the rust test suite in order to get a few of them to
pass.
Co-authored-by: Frank Laub <flaub@risc0.com>
Co-authored-by: Urgau <3616612+Urgau@users.noreply.github.com>
bootstrap: handle vendored sources when remapping crate paths
#115872 introduced a feature to add path remapping for crate dependencies, but only when they came from Cargo's registry cache, not a vendor directory.
This caused builds that used remapped debuginfo and vendor directories to fail with:
```
std::fs::read_dir(registry_src) failed with No such file or directory (os error 2)
```
or (if the `registry/src` directory exists but is empty)
```
error: --remap-path-prefix must contain '=' between FROM and TO
```
Fixes#117885 by explicitly supporting the `vendor` directory and adding it to `RUSTC_CARGO_REGISTRY_SRC_TO_REMAP`.
Note that `bootstrap.py` already assumes that `./vendor` within the rust repo is the only supported vendoring location.
r? `@pietroalbini`
Don't skip the inconsistent data layout check for custom LLVMs.
With #118708, all targets will have a simple test that would trigger this
check if LLVM's data layouts do change - so data layouts would be
corrected during the LLVM upgrade. Therefore, with builtin targets, this
check won't trigger with our LLVM because each target will have been
confirmed to work. With non-builtin targets, this check is probably
useful to have because you can change the data layout in your target and
if its wrong then that could lead to bugs.
When using a custom LLVM, the same justification makes sense for
non-builtin targets as with our LLVM, the user can update their target to
match their LLVM and that's probably a good thing to do. However, with
a custom LLVM, the user cannot change the builtin target data layouts if
they don't match - though given that the compiler's data layout is used
for layout computation and a bunch of other things - you could get some
bugs because of the mismatch and probably want to know about that.
`CFG_LLVM_ROOT` was also always set during local development with
`download-ci-llvm` so this bug would never trigger locally.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
By "actual" we refer to the uplifting logic where we may not compile the requested stage;
instead, we uplift it from the previous stages. Which can lead to bootstrap failures in
specific situations where we request stage X from other steps. However we may end up
uplifting it from stage Y, causing the other stage to fail when attempting to link with
stage X which was never actually built.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
bump bootstrap dependencies
This PR removes hard-coded patch versions, updates bootstrap's dependency stack to recent versions (some of the versions were released 3-4 years ago), and removes a few dependencies from bootstrap.
Removed dependencies:
