bootstrap: Default to a sensible llvm-suffix.
I used version-channel-sha, hopefully that should work.
I checked that bootstrap builds, but I cannot check anything else since the llvm
build process is started from cargo, and thus calls clang, and thus I hit the
same bug I hope to fix with this change.
Hopefully fixes#59034.
I used version-channel-sha, hopefully that should work.
I checked that bootstrap builds, but I cannot check anything else since the llvm
build process is started from cargo, and thus calls clang, and thus I hit the
same bug I hope to fix with this change.
Hopefully fixes#59034.
look for python2 symlinks before bootstrap python
Before this commit, if you're running x.py directly on a system where
`python` is symlinked to Python 3, then the `python` config option will
default to a Python 3 interpreter. This causes debuginfo tests to fail
with an opaque error message, since they have a hard requirement on
Python 2.
This commit modifies the Python probe behavior to look for python2.7 and
python2 *before* using the interpreter used to execute `x.py`.
Before this commit, if you're running x.py directly on a system where
`python` is symlinked to Python 3, then the `python` config option will
default to a Python 3 interpreter. This causes debuginfo tests to fail
with an opaque error message, since they have a hard requirement on
Python 2.
This commit modifies the Python probe behavior to look for python2.7 and
python2 *before* using the interpreter used to execute `x.py`.
rustc: Update LLVM, remove dead wasm code
This commit updates the LLVM branch to the rebased version of the
upstream release/8.x branch. This includes a wasm patch which means that
the `rewrite_imports` pass in rustc is no longer needed (yay!) and we
can instead rely on `wasm-import-module`, an attribute we're already
emitting, to take care of all the work.
We'll use this as a temporary measure to get an LLVM update landed, but
we'll have to go through and update images later to make sure they've
got the right toolchains.
Rustdoc remove old style files
Reopening of #56577 (which I can't seem to reopen...).
I made the flag unstable so with this change, what was blocking the PR is now gone I assume.
Fixes rustdoc in stage 0, stage 1
When a request for rustdoc is passed for stage 0, x.py build --stage 0
src/tools/rustdoc or ensure(tool::Rustdoc { .. }) with top_stage = 0, we
return the rustdoc for that compiler (i.e., the beta rustdoc).
This fixes stage 0 of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52186 as well as being part of general workflow improvements (making stage 0 testing for std work) for rustbuild.
The stage 1 fix (second commit) completely resolves the problem, so this fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52186.
The RUSTDOC_LIBDIR should be rustc_libdir, not sysroot_libdir; rustdoc
is like the compiler and should link against rustc's libdir.
Some people currently (i.e., in general, may not be on master) have doc
tests working, but no attempt to determine why has been attempted.
When a request for rustdoc is passed for stage 0, x.py build --stage 0
src/tools/rustdoc or ensure(tool::Rustdoc { .. }) with top_stage = 0, we
return the rustdoc for that compiler (i.e., the beta rustdoc).
NVPTX target specification
This change adds a built-in `nvptx64-nvidia-cuda` GPGPU no-std target specification and a basic PTX assembly smoke tests.
The approach is taken here and the target spec is based on `ptx-linker`, a project started about 1.5 years ago. Key feature: bitcode object files being linked with LTO into the final module on the linker's side.
Prior to this change, the linker used a `ld` linker-flavor, but I think, having the special CLI convention is a more reliable way.
Questions about further progress on reliable CUDA workflow with Rust:
1. Is it possible to create a test suite `codegen-asm` to verify end-to-end integration with LLVM backend?
1. How would it be better to organise no-std `compile-fail` tests: add `#![no_std]` where possible and mark others as `ignore-nvptx` directive, or alternatively, introduce `compile-fail-no-std` test suite?
1. Can we have the `ptx-linker` eventually be integrated as `rls` or `clippy`? Hopefully, this should allow to statically link against LLVM used in Rust and get rid of the [current hacky solution](https://github.com/denzp/rustc-llvm-proxy).
1. Am I missing some methods from `rustc_codegen_ssa::back::linker::Linker` that can be useful for bitcode-only linking?
Currently, there are no major public CUDA projects written in Rust I'm aware of, but I'm expecting to have a built-in target will create a solid foundation for further experiments and awesome crates.
Related to #38789Fixes#38787Fixes#38786
compiletest: Support opt-in Clang-based run-make tests and use them for testing xLTO.
Some cross-language run-make tests need a Clang compiler that matches the LLVM version of `rustc`. Since such a compiler usually isn't available these tests (marked with the `needs-matching-clang`
directive) are ignored by default.
For some CI jobs we do need these tests to run unconditionally though. In order to support this a `--force-clang-based-tests` flag is added to compiletest. If this flag is specified, `compiletest` will fail if it can't detect an appropriate version of Clang.
@rust-lang/infra The PR doesn't yet enable the tests yet. Do you have any recommendation for which jobs to enable them?
cc #57438
r? @alexcrichton
Do not set CC, CFLAGS, CXX, CXXFLAGS, AR, RANLIB in bootstrap, it breaks cross compilation
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57812
I tested it in AArch64 Ubuntu container with several days old tree to have all the tools buildable.
I did **not** test native builds (amd64 -> amd64), leaving it to CI.
r? @alexcrichton
kennytm