Remove the `wasm32-wasi` target from rustc
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical `wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of `wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of `wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
rustc_codegen_llvm: Add a new 'pc' option to branch-protection
Add a new 'pc' option to -Z branch-protection for aarch64 that enables the use of PC as a diversifier in PAC branch protection code.
When the pauth-lr target feature is enabled in combination with -Z branch-protection=pac-ret,pc, the new 9.5-a instructions (pacibsppc, retaasppc, etc) will be generated.
This commit is the final step in the journey of renaming the historical
`wasm32-wasi` target in the Rust compiler to `wasm32-wasip1`. Various
steps in this journey so far have been:
* 2023-04-03: rust-lang/compiler-team#607 - initial proposal for this rename
* 2024-11-27: rust-lang/compiler-team#695 - amended schedule/procedure for rename
* 2024-01-29: rust-lang/rust#120468 - initial introduction of `wasm32-wasip1`
* 2024-06-18: rust-lang/rust#126662 - warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2024-11-08: this PR - remove the `wasm32-wasi` target
The full transition schedule is in [this comment][comment] and is
summarized with:
* 2024-05-02: Rust 1.78 released with `wasm32-wasip1` target
* 2024-09-05: Rust 1.81 released warning on usage of `wasm32-wasi`
* 2025-01-09: Rust 1.84 to be released without the `wasm32-wasi` target
This means that support on stable for the replacement target of
`wasm32-wasip1` has currently been available for 6 months. Users have
already seen warnings on stable for 2 months about usage of
`wasm32-wasi` and stable users have another 2 months of warnings before
the target is removed from stable.
This commit is intended to be the final step in this transition so the
source tree should no longer mention `wasm32-wasi` except in historical
reference to the older name of the `wasm32-wasip1` target.
[comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
Add a new 'pc' option to -Z branch-protection for aarch64 that
enables the use of PC as a diversifier in PAC branch protection code.
When the pauth-lr target feature is enabled in combination
with -Z branch-protection=pac-ret,pc, the new 9.5-a instructions
(pacibsppc, retaasppc, etc) will be generated.
Fix#128930: Print documentation of CLI options missing their arg
Fix#128930. Failing to give an argument to CLI options which require it now prints something like:
```
$ rustc --print
error: Argument to option 'print' missing
Usage:
--print [crate-name|file-names|sysroot|target-libdir|cfg|check-cfg|calling-conventions|target-list|target-cpus|target-features|relocation-models|code-models|tls-models|target-spec-json|all-target-specs-json|native-static-libs|stack-protector-strategies|link-args|deployment-target]
Compiler information to print on stdout
```
We want to allow setting this on the CLI, override it only in MIR
passes, and disable it altogether in mir-opt tests.
The default value is "only for NLL MIR dumps", which is considered off
for all intents and purposes, except for `rustc_borrowck` when an NLL
MIR dump is requested.
patchable-function-entry: Add unstable compiler flag and attribute
Tracking issue: #123115
Add the -Z patchable-function-entry compiler flag and the #[patchable_function_entry(prefix_nops = m, entry_nops = n)] attribute.
Rebased and adjusted the canditate implementation to match changes in the RFC.
`-Z patchable-function-entry` works like `-fpatchable-function-entry`
on clang/gcc. The arguments are total nop count and function offset.
See MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#704
Added an associated `const THIS_IMPLEMENTATION_HAS_BEEN_TRIPLE_CHECKED`
to the `StableOrd` trait to ensure that implementors carefully consider
whether the trait's contract is upheld, as incorrect implementations can
cause miscompilations.
This commit is a continuation of the work originally proposed in
rust-lang/compiler-team#607 and later amended in
rust-lang/compiler-team#695. The end goal is to rename `wasm32-wasi` to
`wasm32-wasip1` to reflect WASI's development and distinguish the
preexisting target from the `wasm32-wasip2` target that WASI is now
developing. Work for this transition began in #120468 which landed in
Rust 1.78 which became stable on 2024-05-02.
This implements the next phase of the transition plan to warn on usage
of `wasm32-wasi`. This is intended to help alert users that a removal is
pending and all release channels have the replacement available as well.
This will reach stable on 2024-09-05. The next stage of the plan is to
remove the `wasm32-wasi` target some time in October 2024 which means
that the removal will reach stable on 2025-01-09. For reference a full
schedule of this transition is listed [here].
Currently this implementation is a simple unconditional warning whenever
`rustc --target wasm32-wasi` is invoked. As-implemented there's no way
to turn off the warning other than to switch to the `wasm32-wasip1`
target.
[here]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from
MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch
coverage and MC/DC coverage, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If other code changes would make it hard to keep
supporting this flag, remove it.
Add `--print=check-cfg` to get the expected configs
This PR adds a new `--print` variant `check-cfg` to get the expected configs.
Details and rational can be found on the MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/743
``@rustbot`` label +F-check-cfg +S-waiting-on-MCP
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone
file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more
efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin
-fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o
(full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of
the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's
more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm
working on this area.
I talked some to @teresajohnson about naming in this area, as things
seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build
systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too
ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized
bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang
option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new
spelling in the world.
Per @dtolnay, you can work around the lack of this by using `lld
--thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of
bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all
the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized
bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the
time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
