Add x86_64-pc-windows-msvc linker-plugin-lto instructions
I had some trouble getting cross language LTO working for this target, in part because the very few links of documentation I could find were linux-centric and because of a few very specific errors I ran into. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to document this, but this is one of the first links I found when looking for documentation so it might be the best place for it.
add OpenBSD platform-support page
It mentions x86_64, i686, aarch64 and sparc64 which are actively maintained and used on OpenBSD (binaries provided by standard package distribution on OpenBSD).
I volontary kept `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` unmentioned as it was added by `@Yn0ga` in #82733, and I am unaware if it is functional or not (I doubt as I added libc support only few days ago, and std `c_char` signess was wrong). `@Yn0ga` maybe you comment on your `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` usage ?
Add preliminary support for inline assembly for msp430.
The `llvm_asm` macro was removed recently, and the MSP430 backend relies on inline assembly to build useful embedded apps. I conveniently "found" time to implement basic support for the new inline `asm` macro syntax with the help of `@Amanieu` :D.
In addition to tests in the compiler, I have tested this locally against deployed MSP430 code and have not found any noticeable differences in firmware operation or `objdump` disassemblies between the old `llvm_asm` and the new `asm` syntax.
Stabilize `-Z print-link-args` as `--print link-args`
We have stable options for adding linker arguments; we should have a
stable option to help debug linker arguments.
Add documentation for the new option. In the documentation, make it clear that
the *exact* format of the output is not a stable guarantee.
Clarifications in the target tier policy
We've added several targets since the introduction of the target tier policy. Based on experiences of those adding such targets, and discussions around such additions, clarify the target tier policy to make it easier to follow and work with.
None of these changes substantively change the requirements on targets. (In some cases the changes do direct target submitters to follow specific process requirements for the addition of a target, such as how to respond to requirements, where to put target-specific documentation, or what should appear in that documentation. Those changes are procedural in nature and document the procedures we already direct people to follow.)
- Clarify how to quote and respond to the target tier policy requirements. Several times, people have seemed unclear on how to respond to some of the policy requirements, particularly those that just state things the target developers must *not* do (e.g. not posting to PRs that break the target). Add a note that such requirements just need acknowledgement, nothing more.
- Clarify dependency requirements in the face of cross-compilation. I previously phrased this confusingly in terms of "host tools", since that is the case where an exception applies (allowing proprietary target libraries commonly used by binaries for the target). Rephrase it to apply equally to cross-compilation. This doesn't change the net effect of the requirements, since other requirements already cover the dependencies of the Rust toolchain.
- Clarify documentation about running binaries. The requirement for target documentation talks about "running tests", but tier 3 targets often don't support running the full testsuite, and in practice the documentation for how to run an individual binary may be more useful. Change "running tests" to "running binaries, or running tests".
- Explain where to place target-specific documentation (a subdirectory of platform-support, with a link from the platform-support entry for the target).
- Add a template for target-specific documentation.
Remove deprecated LLVM-style inline assembly
The `llvm_asm!` was deprecated back in #87590 1.56.0, with intention to remove
it once `asm!` was stabilized, which already happened in #91728 1.59.0. Now it
is time to remove `llvm_asm!` to avoid continued maintenance cost.
Closes#70173.
Closes#92794.
Closes#87612.
Closes#82065.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-inline-asm`
r? `@Amanieu`
Add codegen option for branch protection and pointer authentication on AArch64
The branch-protection codegen option enables the use of hint-space pointer
authentication code for AArch64 targets.
They are also removed from the prelude as per the decision in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87228.
stdarch and compiler-builtins are updated to work with the new, stable
asm! and global_asm! macros.
Add --out-dir flag for rustdoc
part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91260
Add --out-dir flag for rustdoc and change the `-o` option to point to out-dir.
I'm not quite sure if it should be stable, also I'm not sure if this parameter priority is appropriate? Or should I just refuse to pass both parameters at the same time?
r? `@jyn514`
Remove the reg_thumb register class for asm! on ARM
Also restricts r8-r14 from being used on Thumb1 targets as per #90736.
cc ``@Lokathor``
r? ``@joshtriplett``
Link to rustdoc_json_types docs instead of rustdoc-json RFC
The JSON format has had [many changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commits/master/src/rustdoc-json-types) since the RFC, so the rustdoc output is the only up to date reference
```@rustdoc``` modify labels: +A-rustdoc-json +A-docs
Support AVR for inline asm!
A first pass at support for the AVR platform in inline `asm!`. Passes the initial compiler tests, have not yet done more complete verification.
In particular, the register classes could use a lot more fleshing out, this draft PR so far only includes the most basic.
cc `@Amanieu` `@dylanmckay`
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.
- Changed the separator from '+' to ','.
- Moved the branch protection options from -C to -Z.
- Additional test for incorrect branch-protection option.
- Remove LLVM < 12 code.
- Style fixes.
Co-authored-by: James McGregor <james.mcgregor2@arm.com>
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.
