Emit `check-cfg` lints during attribute parsing rather than evaluation
The goal of this PR is to make the `eval_config_entry` not have any side effects, by moving the check-cfg lints to the attribute parsing. This also helps ensure we do emit the lint in situations where the attribute happens to be parsed, but never evaluated.
cc ``@jdonszelmann`` ``@Urgau`` for a vibe check if you feel like it
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#135602 (Tweak output of missing lifetime on associated type)
- rust-lang/rust#139751 (Implement pin-project in pattern matching for `&pin mut|const T`)
- rust-lang/rust#142682 (Update bundled musl to 1.2.5)
- rust-lang/rust#148171 (Simplify code to generate line numbers in highlight)
- rust-lang/rust#148263 (Unpin `libc` and `rustix` in `compiler` and `rustbook`)
- rust-lang/rust#148301 ([rustdoc search] Include extern crates when filtering on `import`)
- rust-lang/rust#148330 (Don't require dlltool with the dummy backend on MinGW)
- rust-lang/rust#148338 (cleanup: upstream dropped amx-transpose functionality)
- rust-lang/rust#148340 (Clippy subtree update)
- rust-lang/rust#148343 (`nonpoison::Condvar` should take `MutexGuard` by reference)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Targets theoretically possible, but not provided yet:
- 32-bit arm
See also notes in the PR, I was unable to run anything non-trivial on ARM HelenOS, there are issues
with the linker/loader, incomplete support of atomics, and overall a lot of confusion about
the precise version of ARM architecture that the HelenOS builds target.
- riscv, mips (These targets currently don't run HelenOS at all. HelenOS says it should work, but the builds are broken for quite some time now.)
This commit adds a new tier 3 target to rustc, `wasm32-wasip3`. This
follows in the footsteps of the previous `wasm32-wasip2` target and is
used to represent binding to the WASIp3 set of APIs managed by the WASI
subgroup to the WebAssembly Community Group.
As of now the WASIp3 set of APIs are not finalized nor standardized.
They're in the process of doing so and the current trajectory is to have
the APIs published in December of this year. The goal here is to get the
wheels turning in Rust to have the target in a
more-ready-than-nonexistent state by the time this happens in December.
For now the `wasm32-wasip3` target looks exactly the same as
`wasm32-wasip2` except that `target_env = "p3"` is specified. This
indicates to crates in the ecosystem that WASIp3 APIs should be used,
such as the [`wasip3` crate]. Over time this target will evolve as
implementation in guest toolchains progress, notably:
* The standard library will use WASIp3 APIs natively once they're
finalized in the WASI subgroup.
* Support through `wasi-libc` will be updated to use WASIp3 natively
which Rust will then transitively use.
* Longer-term, features such as cooperative multithreading will be added
to the WASIp3-track of targets to enable using `std::thread`, for
example, on this target.
These changes are all expected to be non-breaking changes for users of
this target. Runtimes supporting WASIp3, currently Wasmtime and Jco,
support WASIp2 APIs as well and will work with components whether or not
they import WASIp2, both WASIp2 and WASIp3, or just WASIp3 APIs. This
means that changing the internal implementation details of libstd over
time is expected to be a non-breaking change.
[`wasip3` crate]: https://crates.io/crates/wasip3
Add panic=immediate-abort
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/909
This adds a new panic strategy, `-Cpanic=immediate-abort`. This panic strategy essentially just codifies use of `-Zbuild-std-features=panic_immediate_abort`. This PR is intended to just set up infrastructure, and while it will change how the compiler is invoked for users of the feature, there should be no other impacts.
In many parts of the compiler, `PanicStrategy::ImmediateAbort` behaves just like `PanicStrategy::Abort`, because actually most parts of the compiler just mean to ask "can this unwind?" so I've added a helper function so we can say `sess.panic_strategy().unwinds()`.
The panic and unwind strategies have some level of compatibility, which mostly means that we can pre-compile the sysroot with unwinding panics then the sysroot can be linked with aborting panics later. The immediate-abort strategy is all-or-nothing, enforced by `compiler/rustc_metadata/src/dependency_format.rs` and this is tested for in `tests/ui/panic-runtime/`. We could _technically_ be more compatible with the other panic strategies, but immediately-aborting panics primarily exist for users who want to eliminate all the code size responsible for the panic runtime. I'm open to other use cases if people want to present them, but not right now. This PR is already large.
`-Cpanic=immediate-abort` sets both `cfg(panic = "immediate-abort")` _and_ `cfg(panic = "abort")`. bjorn3 pointed out that people may be checking for the abort cfg to ask if panics will unwind, and also the sysroot feature this is replacing used to require `-Cpanic=abort` so this seems like a good back-compat step. At least for the moment. Unclear if this is a good idea indefinitely. I can imagine this being confusing.
The changes to the standard library attributes are purely mechanical. Apart from that, I removed an `unsafe` we haven't needed for a while since the `abort` intrinsic became safe, and I've added a helpful diagnostic for people trying to use the old feature.
To test that `-Cpanic=immediate-abort` conflicts with other panic strategies, I've beefed up the core-stubs infrastructure a bit. There is now a separate attribute to set flags on it.
I've added a test that this produces the desired codegen, called `tests/run-make-cargo/panic-immediate-abort-codegen/` and also a separate run-make-cargo test that checks that we can build a binary.
aarch64: Make `outline-atomics` a known target feature
This is a feature used by LLVM that is enabled for our `aarch64-linux` targets, which we would like to configure on in `std`. Thus, mark `outline-atomics` a known feature. It is left unstable for now.
Add minimal `armv7a-vex-v5` tier three target
This PR adds minimal, `no_std` support for the VEX V5 Brain, a robotics microcontroller used in educational contexts. In comparison to rust-lang/rust#131530, which aimed to add this same target, these changes are limited in scope to the compiler.
## Tier 3 Target Policy Compliance
> 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.)
Lewis McClelland (`@lewisfm),` `@Tropix126,` Gavin Niederman (`@Gavin-Niederman),` and Max Niederman (`@max-niederman)` will be the designated maintainers for `armv7a-vex-v5` support.
> 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.
`armv7a-vex-v5` follows the cpu-vendor-model convention used by most tier three targets. For example: `armv76k-nintendo-3ds` or `armv7k-apple-watchos`.
> 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.
This target name is not confusing.
> 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.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
>
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> 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.
There are no new dependencies/features required in the current state of this target. Porting the standard library will likely require depending on the crate `vex-sdk` which is MIT-licensed and contains bindings to the VEX SDK runtime (which is included in VEXos).
> 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.
>
> "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.
Although the VEX V5 Brain and its SDK are proprietary, this target does not link to any proprietary binaries or libraries, and is based solely on publicly available information about the VEX SDK.
> 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.
>
> 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.
I 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.
This initial PR only contains a compiler target definition to teach the `cc` crate about this target. Porting the standard library is the next step for this target.
> 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.
This target is documented in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/armv7a-vex-v5.md`.
> 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.
>
> 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.
I understand and assent.
> 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.
I understand and assent.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
`armv7a-vex-v5` has nearly identical codegen to `armv7a-none-eabihf`, so this is not an issue.
> 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.
I understand.
> 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.)
Lewis McClelland (lewisfm), Tropix126, Gavin Niederman (Gavin-Niederman), and Max Niederman (max-niederman) will be the designated maintainers for `armv7a-vex-v5` support.
> 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.
`armv7a-vex-v5` follows the cpu-vendor-model convention used by most tier three targets. For example: `armv76k-nintendo-3ds` or `armv7k-apple-watchos`.
> 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.
This target name is not confusing.
> 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.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
>
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> 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.
There are no new dependencies/features required in the current state of this target. Porting the standard library will likely require depending on the crate `vex-sdk` which is MIT-licensed and contains bindings to the VEX SDK runtime (which is included in VEXos).
> 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.
>
> "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.
Although the VEX V5 Brain and its SDK are proprietary, this target does not link to any proprietary binaries or libraries, and is based solely on publicly available information about the VEX SDK.
> 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.
>
> 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.
I 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.
This initial PR only contains a compiler target definition to teach the `cc` crate about this target. Porting the standard library is the next step for this target.
> 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.
This target is documented in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/armv7a-vex-v5.md`.
> 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.
>
> 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.
I understand and assent.
> 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.
I understand and assent.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
`armv7a-vex-v5` has nearly identical codegen to `armv7a-none-eabihf`, so this is not an issue.
> 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.
I understand.
Co-authored-by: Max Niederman <max@maxniederman.com>
Co-authored-by: Tropical <42101043+Tropix126@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gavin Niederman <gavinniederman@gmail.com>
This is a feature used by LLVM that is enabled for our `aarch64-linux`
targets, which we would like to configure on in `std`. Thus, mark
`outline-atomics` a known feature. It is left unstable for now.
The previous manual parsing of `serde_json::Value` was a lot of
complicated code and extremely error-prone. It was full of janky
behavior like sometimes ignoring type errors, sometimes erroring for
type errors, sometimes warning for type errors, and sometimes just
ICEing for type errors (the icing on the top).
Additionally, many of the error messages about allowed values were out
of date because they were in a completely different place than the
FromStr impls. Overall, the system caused confusion for users.
I also found the old deserialization code annoying to read. Whenever a
`key!` invocation was found, one had to first look for the right macro
arm, and no go to definition could help.
This PR replaces all this manual parsing with a 2-step process involving
serde.
First, the string is parsed into a `TargetSpecJson` struct. This struct
is a 1:1 representation of the spec JSON. It already parses all the
enums and is very simple to read and write.
Then, the fields from this struct are copied into the actual `Target`.
The reason for this two-step process instead of just serializing into a
`Target` is because of a few reasons
1. There are a few transformations performed between the two formats
2. The default logic is implemented this way. Otherwise all the default
field values would have to be spelled out again, which is
suboptimal. With this logic, they fall out naturally, because
everything in the json struct is an `Option`.
Overall, the mapping is pretty simple, with the vast majority of fields
just doing a 1:1 mapping that is captured by two macros. I have
deliberately avoided making the macros generic to keep them simple.
All the `FromStr` impls now have the error message right inside them,
which increases the chance of it being up to date. Some "`from_str`"
impls were turned into proper `FromStr` impls to support this.
The new code is much less involved, delegating all the JSON parsing
logic to serde, without any manual type matching.
This change introduces a few breaking changes for consumers. While it is
possible to use this format on stable, it is very much subject to
change, so breaking changes are expected. The hope is also that because
of the way stricter behavior, breaking changes are easier to deal with,
as they come with clearer error messages.
1. Invalid types now always error, everywhere. Previously, they would
sometimes error, and sometimes just be ignored (which meant the users
JSON was still broken, just silently!)
2. This now makes use of `deny_unknown_fields` instead of just warning
on unused fields, which was done previously. Serde doesn't make it
easy to get such warning behavior, which was the primary reason that
this now changed. But I think error behavior is very reasonable too.
If someone has random stale fields in their JSON, it is likely
because these fields did something at some point but no longer do,
and the user likely wants to be informed of this so they can figure
out what to do.
This is also relevant for the future. If we remove a field but
someone has it set, it probably makes sense for them to take a look
whether they need this and should look for alternatives, or whether
they can just delete it. Overall, the JSON is made more explicit.
This is the only expected breakage, but there could also be small
breakage from small mistakes. All targets roundtrip though, so it can't
be anything too major.
Add target features for sm_* and ptx*, both of which form a partial
order, but cannot be combined to a single partial order. These mirror
the LLVM target features, but we do not provide LLVM target
processors (which imply both an sm_* and ptx* feature).
Add some documentation for the nvptx target.
retpoline and retpoline-external-thunk flags (target modifiers) to enable retpoline-related target features
`-Zretpoline` and `-Zretpoline-external-thunk` flags are target modifiers (tracked to be equal in linked crates).
* Enables target features for `-Zretpoline-external-thunk`:
`+retpoline-external-thunk`, `+retpoline-indirect-branches`, `+retpoline-indirect-calls`.
* Enables target features for `-Zretpoline`:
`+retpoline-indirect-branches`, `+retpoline-indirect-calls`.
It corresponds to clang -mretpoline & -mretpoline-external-thunk flags.
Also this PR forbids to specify those target features manually (warning).
Issue: rust-lang/rust#116852
Add the AVX10 target features
Parent #138843
Adds the `avx10_target_feature` feature gate, and `avx10.1` and `avx10.2` target features.
It is confirmed that Intel is dropping AVX10/256 (see [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111137#issuecomment-2795442288)), so this should be safe to implement now.
The LLVM fix for llvm/llvm-project#135394 was merged, and has been backported to LLVM20, and the patch has also been propagated to rustc in #140502
`@rustbot` label O-x86_64 O-x86_32 A-target-feature A-SIMD
Matthias Krüger