remove explicit deref of AbiAlign for most methods
Much of the compiler calls functions on Align projected from AbiAlign. AbiAlign impls Deref to its inner Align, so we can simplify these away. Also, it will minimize disruption when AbiAlign is removed.
For now, preserve usages that might resolve to PartialOrd or PartialEq, as those have odd inference.
Much of the compiler calls functions on Align projected from AbiAlign.
AbiAlign impls Deref to its inner Align, so we can simplify these away.
Also, it will minimize disruption when AbiAlign is removed.
For now, preserve usages that might resolve to PartialOrd or PartialEq,
as those have odd inference.
stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs
This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145954.
**Previous (combined) PR description:**
This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates.
The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR):
- "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions**
- "C" for everything else
This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161, which got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang/rust#116161.
There was a question raised [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161#issuecomment-1983829513) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#100189
Cc `@rust-lang/lang`
# Stabilization report
> ## General design
> ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100189
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946
> ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics.
- Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/issues/3626.
- Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those.
Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do
```rust
extern "system" {
// put all the things here
}
```
and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there).
(I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.)
> ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930).
> ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
>
> Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results".
There was no call for testing.
A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics.
> ## Implementation quality
All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here...
> ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
>
> An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>.
The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](9c870d30e2/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs (L109-L126)).
The special handling of "system" is [here](c24914ec83/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs (L82-L85)).
> ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
>
> Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing.
>
> Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time.
>
> - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like?
> - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes?
> - Tests for the feature itself:
> - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation)
> - Exercises of edge cases of the feature
> - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`).
> - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage?
>
> Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.).
Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144359
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144379
We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.)
The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`.
> ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
None that I am aware of.
> ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None that I am aware of.
> ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
`@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature.
> ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
>
> Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs.
Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here.
> ## Type system and execution rules
> ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior?
>
> (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale?
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1936
> ## Common interactions
> ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries?
No.
> ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature?
None.
For example, transmuting between `bool` and `Ordering` doesn't need two `assume`s because one range is a superset of the other.
Multiple are still used for things like `char` <-> `NonZero<u32>`, which overlap but where neither fully contains the other.
Allow custom default address spaces and parse `p-` specifications in the datalayout string
Some targets, such as CHERI, use as default an address space different from the "normal" default address space `0` (in the case of CHERI, [200 is used](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-877.pdf)). Currently, `rustc` does not allow to specify custom address spaces and does not take into consideration [`p-` specifications in the datalayout string](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#langref-datalayout).
This patch tries to mitigate these problems by allowing targets to define a custom default address space (while keeping the default value to address space `0`) and adding the code to parse the `p-` specifications in `rustc_abi`. The main changes are that `TargetDataLayout` now uses functions to refer to pointer-related informations, instead of having specific fields for the size and alignment of pointers in the default address space; furthermore, the two `pointer_size` and `pointer_align` fields in `TargetDataLayout` are replaced with an `FxHashMap` that holds info for all the possible address spaces, as parsed by the `p-` specifications.
The potential performance drawbacks of not having ad-hoc fields for the default address space will be tested in this PR's CI run.
r? workingjubilee
We will want to remove many cases of `.abi`, including `.abi.thing`,
so this may simplify future PRs and certainly doesn't hurt.
We omit DerefMut because mutation is much rarer and localized.
In PR 90877 T-lang decided not to remove `intrinsics::pref_align_of`.
However, the intrinsic and its supporting code
1. is a nightly feature, so can be removed at compiler/libs discretion
2. requires considerable effort in the compiler to support, as it
necessarily complicates every single site reasoning about alignment
3. has been justified based on relevance to codegen, but it is only a
requirement for C++ (not C, not Rust) stack frame layout for AIX,
in ways Rust would not consider even with increased C++ interop
4. is only used by rustc to overalign some globals, not correctness
5. can be adequately replaced by other rules for globals, as it mostly
affects alignments for a few types under 16 bytes of alignment
6. has only one clear benefactor: automating C -> Rust translation
for GNU extensions like `__alignof`
7. such code was likely intended to be `alignof` or `_Alignof`,
because the GNU extension is a "false friend" of the C keyword,
which makes the choice to support such a mapping very questionable
8. makes it easy to do incorrect codegen in the compiler by its mere
presence as usual Rust rules of alignment (e.g. `size == align * N`)
do not hold with preferred alignment
The implementation is clearly damaging the code quality of the compiler.
Thus it is within the compiler team's purview to simply rip it out.
If T-lang wishes to have this intrinsic restored for c2rust's benefit,
it would have to use a radically different implementation that somehow
does not cause internal incorrectness.
Until then, remove the intrinsic and its supporting code, as one tool
and an ill-considered GCC extension cannot justify risking correctness.
Because we touch a fair amount of the compiler to change this at all,
and unfortunately the duplication of AbiAndPrefAlign is deep-rooted,
we keep an "AbiAlign" type which we can wean code off later.
Add a .bss-like scheme for encoded const allocs
This check if all bytes are zero feel like it should be too slow, and instead we should have a flag that we track, but that seems hard. Let's see how this perfs first.
Also we can probably stash the "it's all zero actually" flag inside one of the other struct members that's already not using an entire byte. This optimization doesn't fire all that often, so it's possible that by sticking it in the varint length field, this PR actually makes rmeta size worse.
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138084> to buy time to
consider options that avoids breaking downstream usages of cargo on
distributed `rustc-src` artifacts, where such cargo invocations fail due
to inability to inherit `lints` from workspace root manifest's
`workspace.lints` (this is only valid for the source rust-lang/rust
workspace, but not really the distributed `rustc-src` artifacts).
This breakage was reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138304>.
This reverts commit 48caf81484b50dca5a5cebb614899a3df81ca898, reversing
changes made to c6662879b27f5161e95f39395e3c9513a7b97028.
Move more layouting logic to `rustc_abi`
Move all `LayoutData`-constructing code to `rustc_abi`:
- Infaillible operations get a new `LayoutData` constructor method;
- Faillible ones get a new method on `LayoutCalculator`.
Greatly simplify lifetime captures in edition 2024
Remove most of the `+ Captures` and `+ '_` from the compiler, since they are now unnecessary with the new edition 2021 lifetime capture rules. Use some `+ 'tcx` and `+ 'static` rather than being overly verbose with precise capturing syntax.
compiler: untangle SIMD alignment assumptions
There were a number of puzzling assumptions being made about SIMD types and their layout that I have corrected in this diff. These are mostly no-op edits in actual fact, but they do subtly alter a pair of checks in our invariant-checking and union layout computation that rested on those peculiar assumptions. Those unfortunately stand in the way of any further actual fixes. I submit this for review, even though it's not clearly motivated without its followups, because it should still be possible to independently conclude whether this is correct.
This pair of fn was introduced to perform invariant checks for scalars.
Their current behavior doesn't mesh as well with checking SIMD types,
so change the name of the fn to reflect their actual use-case and
refactor the corresponding checks.
Also simplify the returns from Option<AbiAndPrefAlign> to Option<Align>,
because every site was mapping away the "preferred" alignment anyways.
These were a way to ensure hashes were stable over time for ExternAbi,
but simply hashing the strings is more stable in the face of changes.
As a result, we can do away with them.
By moving this stability check into AST lowering, we effectively make
it impossible to accidentally miss, as it must happen to generate HIR.
Also, we put the ABI-stability code next to code that actually uses it!
This allows code that wants to reason about backend ABI implementations
to stop worrying about high-level concerns like syntax stability,
while still leaving it as the authority on what ABIs actually exist.
It also makes it easy to refactor things to have more consistent errors.
For now, we only apply this to generalize the existing messages a bit.
