Before:
* test-zigc: run libzigc unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc: run libc-test cases
Now:
* test-libc: run libc API unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc-nsz: run libc-test cases
libc API unit tests (previously referred to as libzigc unit tests) now run for
all supported targets, even those we don't provide libzigc for. The idea is that
this will help us catch bad assumptions in the unit tests, as well as bugs in
other libcs.
I considered this setup:
* test-c: run libc API unit tests (part of test-modules)
* test-libc-nsz: run libc-test cases
* test-libc: both of the above
However, I do not like it because it gives a false sense of security; the full
module and C ABI test suites are still liable to catch libzigc bugs that test-c
and test-libc-nsz might not. So contributors should just run the test steps
outlined in https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/30978.
Co-authored-by: rpkak <rpkak@noreply.codeberg.org>
LLVM 21 has started recognizing strlen-like idioms and optimizing them to strlen
calls, so we need this function provided in compiler-rt for libc-less
compilations.
This lays the groundwork for #2879. This library will be built and linked when a
static libc is going to be linked into the compilation. Currently, that means
musl, wasi-libc, and MinGW-w64. As a demonstration, this commit removes the musl
C code for a few string functions and implements them in libzigc. This means
that those libzigc functions are now load-bearing for musl and wasi-libc.
Note that if a function has an implementation in compiler-rt already, libzigc
should not implement it. Instead, as we recently did for memcpy/memmove, we
should delete the libc copy and rely on the compiler-rt implementation.
I repurposed the existing "universal libc" code to do this. That code hadn't
seen development beyond basic string functions in years, and was only usable-ish
on freestanding. I think that if we want to seriously pursue the idea of Zig
providing a freestanding libc, we should do so only after defining clear goals
(and non-goals) for it. See also #22240 for a similar case.
Chris Boesch