Add support for riscv64gc-unknown-freebsd
For https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#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.)
For all Rust targets on FreeBSD, it's [rust@FreeBSD.org](mailto:rust@FreeBSD.org).
* 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.
Done.
* 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.
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.
Done.
* The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
Done.
* Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Fine with me.
* 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.
* If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. 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.
Done.
* Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
Done.
* "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.
Fine with me.
* 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.
Ok.
* 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.
Ok.
* 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.
std is implemented.
* 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 tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Building is possible the same way as other Rust on FreeBSD targets.
* 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.
Ok.
* 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.
Ok.
* 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.
Ok.
* 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.
Ok.
Add support for LLVM coverage mapping format versions 5 and 6
This PR cherry-pick's Swatinem's initial commit in unsubmitted PR #90047.
My additional commit augments Swatinem's great starting point, but adds full support for LLVM
Coverage Mapping Format version 6, conditionally, if compiling with LLVM 13.
Version 6 requires adding the compilation directory when file paths are
relative, and since Rustc coverage maps use relative paths, we should
add the expected compilation directory entry.
Note, however, that with the compilation directory, coverage reports
from `llvm-cov show` can now report file names (when the report includes
more than one file) with the full absolute path to the file.
This would be a problem for test results, but the workaround (for the
rust coverage tests) is to include an additional `llvm-cov show`
parameter: `--compilation-dir=.`
This commit augments Swatinem's initial commit in uncommitted PR #90047,
which was a great starting point, but did not fully support LLVM
Coverage Mapping Format version 6.
Version 6 requires adding the compilation directory when file paths are
relative, and since Rustc coverage maps use relative paths, we should
add the expected compilation directory entry.
Note, however, that with the compilation directory, coverage reports
from `llvm-cov show` can now report file names (when the report includes
more than one file) with the full absolute path to the file.
This would be a problem for test results, but the workaround (for the
rust coverage tests) is to include an additional `llvm-cov show`
parameter: `--compilation-dir=.`
This can be replicated in full with other existing features, there's no
need to have a separate option for it.
This also fixes a bug where `--test-args=--show-output` had no effect,
and updates the documentation.
Split inline const to two feature gates and mark expression position inline const complete
This PR splits inline const in pattern position into its own `#![feature(inline_const_pat)]` feature gate, and make the usage in expression position complete.
I think I have resolved most outstanding issues related to `inline_const` with #89561 and other PRs. The only thing left that I am aware of is #90150 and the lack of lifetime checks when inline const is used in pattern position (FIXME in #89561). Implementation-wise when used in pattern position it has to be lowered during MIR building while in expression position it's evaluated only when monomorphizing (just like normal consts), so it makes some sense to separate it into two feature gates so one can progress without being blocked by another.
``@rustbot`` label: T-compiler F-inline_const
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #90386 (Add `-Zassert-incr-state` to assert state of incremental cache)
- #90438 (Clean up mess for --show-coverage documentation)
- #90480 (Mention `Vec::remove` in `Vec::swap_remove`'s docs)
- #90607 (Make slice->str conversion and related functions `const`)
- #90750 (rustdoc: Replace where-bounded Clean impl with simple function)
- #90895 (require full validity when determining the discriminant of a value)
- #90989 (Avoid suggesting literal formatting that turns into member access)
- #91002 (rustc: Remove `#[rustc_synthetic]`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
std: Get the standard library compiling for wasm64
This commit goes through and updates various `#[cfg]` as appropriate to
get the wasm64-unknown-unknown target behaving similarly to the
wasm32-unknown-unknown target. Most of this is just updating various
conditions for `target_arch = "wasm32"` to also account for `target_arch
= "wasm64"` where appropriate. This commit also lists `wasm64` as an
allow-listed architecture to not have the `restricted_std` feature
enabled, enabling experimentation with `-Z build-std` externally.
The main goal of this commit is to enable playing around with
`wasm64-unknown-unknown` externally via `-Z build-std` in a way that's
similar to the `wasm32-unknown-unknown` target. These targets are
effectively the same and only differ in their pointer size, but wasm64
is much newer and has much less ecosystem/library support so it'll still
take time to get wasm64 fully-fledged.
Leave -Z strip available temporarily as an alias, to avoid breaking
cargo until cargo transitions to using -C strip. (If the user passes
both, the -C version wins.)
Added the --temps-dir option
Fixes#10971.
The new `--temps-dir` option puts intermediate files in a user-specified directory. This provides a fix for the issue where parallel invocations of rustc would overwrite each other's intermediate files.
No files are kept in the intermediate directory unless `-C save-temps=yes`.
If additional files are specifically requested using `--emit asm,llvm-bc,llvm-ir,obj,metadata,link,dep-info,mir`, these will be put in the output directory rather than the intermediate directory.
This is a backward-compatible change, i.e. if `--temps-dir` is not specified, the behavior is the same as before.
adjust documented inline-asm register constraints
This change more clearly specifies how `reg` and `reg_thumb` work with ARM, Thumb2, and Thumb1 code.
Based upon the [llvm documentation](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#supported-constraint-code-list) for register constraint codes.
To be clear, this just updates the docs to match what already happens with rustc/llvm.
No change in the compiler is required to make it match this new documentation.
implement rfc-2528 type_changing-struct-update
This PR implement rfc2528-type_changing-struct-update.
The main change process is as follows:
1. Move the processing part of `base_expr` into `check_expr_struct_fields` to avoid returning `remaining_fields` (a relatively complex hash table)
2. Before performing the type consistency check(`check_expr_has_type_or_error`), if the `type_changing_struct_update` feature is set, enter a different processing flow, otherwise keep the original flow
3. In the case of the same structure definition, check each field in `remaining_fields`. If the field in `base_expr` is not the suptype of the field in `adt_ty`, an error(`FeildMisMatch`) will be reported.
The MIR part does not need to be changed, because only the items contained in `remaining_fields` will be extracted from `base_expr` when MIR is generated. This means that fields with different types in `base_expr` will not be used
Updates #86618
cc `@nikomatsakis`
Add features gates for experimental asm features
This PR splits off parts of `asm!` into separate features because they are not ready for stabilization.
Specifically this adds:
- `asm_const` for `const` operands.
- `asm_sym` for `sym` operands.
- `asm_experimental_arch` for architectures other than x86, x86_64, arm, aarch64 and riscv.
r? `@nagisa`
Add a chapter on reading Rustdoc output
Includes documentation for:
- general page structure
- navigation
- searching
- themes
- deep-linking
Doesn't include docs on the settings page.
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90309
Since rustc doesn't do the assembly parsing itself, it is unable
to detect when inline assembly ends with an instruction prefix,
which doesn't make sense since it would apply to instructions from
the compiler. This fixes#82314 by mentioning that x86 instruction
prefixes must not be used in inline assembly.
Make printed message match the code comment
I think this code is getting L0, not L1 cache size, if I'm reading the Intel manual right. (I might not be.) Either way, the code comment and the printed message should match, whichever way is right. :)
Add new tier 3 target: `x86_64-unknown-none`
Adds support for compiling OS kernels or other bare-metal applications for the x86-64 architecture.
Below are details on how this target meets the requirements for tier 3:
> 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.)
I would be willing to be a target maintainer, though I would appreciate if others volunteered to help with that as well.
> 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.
Uses the same naming as the LLVM target, and the same convention as many other bare-metal targets.
> 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.
I don't believe there is any ambiguity here.
> 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.
I don't see any legal issues here.
> 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).
> 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.
>If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. 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.
> Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
> "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.
I see no issues with any of the above.
> 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.
Only relevant to those making approval decisions.
> 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.
`core` and `alloc` can be used. `std` cannot be used as this is a bare-metal target.
> 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 tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Use `--target=x86_64-unknown-none-elf` option to cross compile, just like any target. The target does not support running tests.
> 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.
I don't foresee this being a problem.
> 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.
No other targets should be affected by the pull request.
Unify titles in rustdoc book doc attributes chapter
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90339.
I wasn't able to find out where the link to the titles was used so let's see if the CI fails. :)
r? ``@camelid``
