give Pointer::into_parts a more scary name and offer a safer alternative
`into_parts` is a bit too innocent of a name for a somewhat subtle operation.
r? `@oli-obk`
Add SIMD funnel shift and round-to-even intrinsics
This PR adds 3 new SIMD intrinsics
- `simd_funnel_shl` - funnel shift left
- `simd_funnel_shr` - funnel shift right
- `simd_round_ties_even` (vector version of `round_ties_even_fN`)
TODO (future PR): implement `simd_fsh{l,r}` in miri, cg_gcc and cg_clif (it is surprisingly hard to implement without branches, the common tricks that rotate uses doesn't work because we have 2 elements now. e.g, the `-n&31` trick used by cg_gcc to implement rotate doesn't work with this because then `fshl(a, b, 0)` will be `a | b`)
[#t-compiler > More SIMD intrinsics](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/More.20SIMD.20intrinsics/with/522130286)
`@rustbot` label T-compiler T-libs A-intrinsics F-core_intrinsics
r? `@workingjubilee`
Insert checks for enum discriminants when debug assertions are enabled
Similar to the existing null-pointer and alignment checks, this checks for valid enum discriminants on creation of enums through unsafe transmutes. Essentially this sanitizes patterns like the following:
```rust
let val: MyEnum = unsafe { std::mem::transmute<u32, MyEnum>(42) };
```
An extension of this check will be done in a follow-up that explicitly sanitizes for extern enum values that come into Rust from e.g. C/C++.
This check is similar to Miri's capabilities of checking for valid construction of enum values.
This PR is inspired by saethlin@'s PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104862. Thank you so much for keeping this code up and the detailed comments!
I also pair-programmed large parts of this together with vabr-g@.
r? `@saethlin`
Similar to the existing nullpointer and alignment checks, this checks
for valid enum discriminants on creation of enums through unsafe
transmutes. Essentially this sanitizes patterns like the following:
```rust
let val: MyEnum = unsafe { std::mem::transmute<u32, MyEnum>(42) };
```
An extension of this check will be done in a follow-up that explicitly
sanitizes for extern enum values that come into Rust from e.g. C/C++.
This check is similar to Miri's capabilities of checking for valid
construction of enum values.
This PR is inspired by saethlin@'s PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104862. Thank you so much for
keeping this code up and the detailed comments!
I also pair-programmed large parts of this together with vabr-g@.
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`
