Don't compute FnAbi for LLVM intrinsics in backends
~~This removes support for `extern "unadjusted"` for anything other than LLVM intrinsics. It only makes sense in the context of calling LLVM intrinsics anyway as it exposes the way the LLVM backend internally represents types. Perhaps it should be renamed to `extern "llvm-intrinsic"`?~~
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148533
abi: add a rust-preserve-none calling convention
This is the conceptual opposite of the rust-cold calling convention and is particularly useful in combination with the new `explicit_tail_calls` feature.
For relatively tight loops implemented with tail calling (`become`) each of the function with the regular calling convention is still responsible for restoring the initial value of the preserved registers. So it is not unusual to end up with a situation where each step in the tail call loop is spilling and reloading registers, along the lines of:
foo:
push r12
; do things
pop r12
jmp next_step
This adds up quickly, especially when most of the clobberable registers are already used to pass arguments or other uses.
I was thinking of making the name of this ABI a little less LLVM-derived and more like a conceptual inverse of `rust-cold`, but could not come with a great name (`rust-cold` is itself not a great name: cold in what context? from which perspective? is it supposed to mean that the function is rarely called?)
add `simd_splat` intrinsic
Add `simd_splat` which lowers to the LLVM canonical splat sequence.
```llvm
insertelement <N x elem> poison, elem %x, i32 0
shufflevector <N x elem> v0, <N x elem> poison, <N x i32> zeroinitializer
```
Right now we try to fake it using one of
```rust
fn splat(x: u32) -> u32x8 {
u32x8::from_array([x; 8])
}
```
or (in `stdarch`)
```rust
fn splat(value: $elem_type) -> $name {
#[derive(Copy, Clone)]
#[repr(simd)]
struct JustOne([$elem_type; 1]);
let one = JustOne([value]);
// SAFETY: 0 is always in-bounds because we're shuffling
// a simd type with exactly one element.
unsafe { simd_shuffle!(one, one, [0; $len]) }
}
```
Both of these can confuse the LLVM optimizer, producing sub-par code. Some examples:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60637
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137407
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122623
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97804
---
As far as I can tell there is no way to provide a fallback implementation for this intrinsic, because there is no `const` way of evaluating the number of elements (there might be issues beyond that, too). So, I added implementations for all 4 backends.
Both GCC and const-eval appear to have some issues with simd vectors containing pointers. I have a workaround for GCC, but haven't yet been able to make const-eval work. See the comments below.
Currently this just adds the intrinsic, it does not actually use it anywhere yet.
This is the conceptual opposite of the rust-cold calling convention and
is particularly useful in combination with the new `explicit_tail_calls`
feature.
For relatively tight loops implemented with tail calling (`become`) each
of the function with the regular calling convention is still responsible
for restoring the initial value of the preserved registers. So it is not
unusual to end up with a situation where each step in the tail call loop
is spilling and reloading registers, along the lines of:
foo:
push r12
; do things
pop r12
jmp next_step
This adds up quickly, especially when most of the clobberable registers
are already used to pass arguments or other uses.
I was thinking of making the name of this ABI a little less LLVM-derived
and more like a conceptual inverse of `rust-cold`, but could not come
with a great name (`rust-cold` is itself not a great name: cold in what
context? from which perspective? is it supposed to mean that the
function is rarely called?)
