Add new maintainers to nto-qnx.md
[Ferrous Systems](https://ferrous-systems.com) are volunteering myself and `@japaric` as co-maintainers of the QNX targets.
Make intrinsic fallback bodies cross-crate inlineable
This change was prompted by the stage1 compiler spending 4% of its time when compiling the polymorphic-recursion MIR opt test in `unlikely`.
Intrinsic fallback bodies like `unlikely` should always be inlined, it's very silly if they are not. To do this, we enable the fallback bodies to be cross-crate inlineable. Not that this matters for our workloads since the compiler never actually _uses_ the "fallback bodies", it just uses whatever was cfg(bootstrap)ped, so I've also added `#[inline]` to those.
See the comments for more information.
r? oli-obk
This change was prompted by the stage1 compiler spending 4% of its time
when compiling the polymorphic-recursion MIR opt test in `unlikely`.
Intrinsic fallback bodies like `unlikely` should always be inlined, it's
very silly if they are not. To do this, we enable the fallback bodies to
be cross-crate inlineable. Not that this matters for our workloads since
the compiler never actually _uses_ the "fallback bodies", it just uses
whatever was cfg(bootstrap)ped, so I've also added `#[inline]` to those.
Add clippy into the known `cfg` list
In clippy, we are removing the `feature = "cargo-clippy"` cfg to replace it with `clippy` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12292. But for it to work, we need to declare `clippy` as cfg. It makes it more coherent with other existing tools like rustdoc.
cc `@flip1995`
Implement intrinsics with fallback bodies
fixes#93145 (though we can port many more intrinsics)
cc #63585
The way this works is that the backend logic for generating custom code for intrinsics has been made fallible. The only failure path is "this intrinsic is unknown". The `Instance` (that was `InstanceDef::Intrinsic`) then gets converted to `InstanceDef::Item`, which represents the fallback body. A regular function call to that body is then codegenned. This is currently implemented for
* codegen_ssa (so llvm and gcc)
* codegen_cranelift
other backends will need to adjust, but they can just keep doing what they were doing if they prefer (though adding new intrinsics to the compiler will then require them to implement them, instead of getting the fallback body).
cc `@scottmcm` `@WaffleLapkin`
### todo
* [ ] miri support
* [x] default intrinsic name to name of function instead of requiring it to be specified in attribute
* [x] make sure that the bodies are always available (must be collected for metadata)
[docs] Update armv6k-nintendo-3ds platform docs for outdated info
Mostly just fixing links and references to renamed crates, but also updating a bit of outdated info as well.
CC `@Meziu` `@AzureMarker`
core: add Duration constructors
Add more `Duration` constructors.
Tracking issue: #120301.
These match similar convenience constructors available on both `chrono::Duration` and `time::Duration`.
What's the best ordering for these with respect to the existing constructors?
Update the library paths to correctly refer to libdemo{1,2}_hexagon
and switch to the release build instead.
Update references to libstandalone to the specific G0/PIC archive instead.
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 a new `wasm32-wasi-preview2` target
This is the initial implementation of the MCP https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/694 creating a new tier 3 target `wasm32-wasi-preview2`. That MCP has been seconded and will most likely be approved in a little over a week from now. For more information on the need for this target, please read the [MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/694).
There is one aspect of this PR that will become insta-stable once these changes reach a stable compiler:
* A new `target_family` named `wasi` is introduced. This target family incorporates all wasi targets including `wasm32-wasi` and its derivative `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads`. The difference between `target_family = wasi` and `target_os = wasi` will become much clearer when `wasm32-wasi` is renamed to `wasm32-wasi-preview1` and the `target_os` becomes `wasm32-wasi-preview1`. You can read about this target rename in [this MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/695) which has also been seconded and will hopefully be officially approved soon.
Additional technical details include:
* Both `std::sys::wasi_preview2` and `std::os::wasi_preview2` have been created and mostly use `#[path]` annotations on their submodules to reach into the existing `wasi` (soon to be `wasi_preview1`) modules. Over time the differences between `wasi_preview1` and `wasi_preview2` will grow and most like all `#[path]` based module aliases will fall away.
* Building `wasi-preview2` relies on a [`wasi-sdk`](https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk) in the same way that `wasi-preview1` does (one must include a `wasi-root` path in the `Config.toml` pointing to sysroot included in the wasi-sdk). The target should build against [wasi-sdk v21](https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk/releases/tag/wasi-sdk-21) without modifications. However, the wasi-sdk itself is growing [preview2 support](https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk/pull/370) so this might shift rapidly. We will be following along quickly to make sure that building the target remains possible as the wasi-sdk changes.
* This requires a [patch to libc](https://github.com/rylev/rust-libc/tree/wasm32-wasi-preview2) that we'll need to land in conjunction with this change. Until that patch lands the target won't actually build.
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.
Revert stabilization of trait_upcasting feature
Reverts #118133
This reverts commit 6d2b84b3ed, reversing changes made to 73bc12199e.
The feature has a soundness bug:
* #120222
It is unclear to me whether we'll actually want to destabilize, but I thought it was still prudent to open the PR for easy destabilization once we get there.
Fix -Zremap-path-scope typo
This fixes a documentation typo from #115214 where `-Zremap-path-prefix=object` should be `-Zremap-path-scope=object`.
```@rustbot``` label: +F-trim-paths
tests: add sanity-check assembly test for every target
Fixes#119910.
Adds a basic assembly test checking that each target can produce assembly and update the target tier policy to require this.
cc rust-lang/compiler-team#655
r? `@wesleywiser`
Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg
This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).
### Context
Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.
This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.
To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
- `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
- and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared
This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.
See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](92395d9010/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs (L1263-L1281)) for more details.
### De-specializing *empty* `values()`
To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.
> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.
Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.
A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:
| Syntax | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]` |
| `cfg(name, values())` | `&[]` |
Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/13011.
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`
Adds a basic assembly test checking that each target can produce assembly
and update the target tier policy to require this.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
Add explicit `none()` value variant in check-cfg
This PR adds an explicit none value variant in check-cfg values: `values(none())`.
Currently the only way to define the none variant is with an empty `values()` which means that if someone has a cfg that takes none and strings they need to use two invocations: `--check-cfg=cfg(foo) --check-cfg=cfg(foo, values("bar"))`.
Which would now be `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values(none(),"bar"))`, this is simpler and easier to understand.
`--check-cfg=cfg(foo)`, `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values())` and `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values(none()))` would be equivalent.
*Another motivation for doing this is to make empty `values()` actually means no-values, but this is orthogonal to this PR and adding `none()` is sufficient in it-self.*
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
