Rename rustc_middle::Ty::is_unsafe_ptr to is_raw_ptr
The wording unsafe pointer is less common and not mentioned in a lot of places, instead this is usually called a "raw pointer". For the sake of uniformity, we rename this method.
This came up during the review of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134424.
r? `@Noratrieb`
We cannot produce anything useful if asked to compile unknown targets.
We should handle the error immediately at the point of discovery instead
of propagating it upward, and preferably in the simplest way: Die.
This allows cleaning up our "error-handling" spread across 5 crates.
The wording unsafe pointer is less common and not mentioned in a lot of
places, instead this is usually called a "raw pointer". For the sake of
uniformity, we rename this method.
This came up during the review of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134424.
It is speculated that these two can be conceptually merged, and it can
start by ripping out rustc's notion of the PtxKernel call convention.
Leave the ExternAbi for now, but the nvptx target now should see it as
just a different way to spell Conv::GpuKernel.
This method will be removed in the future as it produces a broken ABI
that depends on cg_llvm implementation details. After this PR
wasm32-unknown-unknown is the only remaining user of
make_direct_deprecated().
The amdgpu-kernel calling convention was reverted in commit
f6b21e90d1 due to inactivity in the amdgpu
target.
Introduce a `gpu-kernel` calling convention that translates to
`ptx_kernel` or `amdgpu_kernel`, depending on the target that rust
compiles for.
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
The Rust ABI must ignore all ZST arguments, all ignored arguments must
be either ZST or uninhabited. And finally ScalarPair should never be
passed as PassMode::Direct.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
Return values larger than 2 registers using a return area pointer
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the return value being passed partially in registers and partially through a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift/issues/1525
cc https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/9250
LLVM and Cranelift disagree about how to return values that don't fit
in the registers designated for return values. LLVM will force the
entire return value to be passed by return area pointer, while
Cranelift will look at each IR level return value independently and
decide to pass it in a register or not, which would result in the
return value being passed partially in registers and partially through
a return area pointer.
While Cranelift may need to be fixed as the LLVM behavior is generally
more correct with respect to the surface language, forcing this
behavior in rustc itself makes it easier for other backends to conform
to the Rust ABI and for the C ABI rustc already handles this behavior
anyway.
In addition LLVM's decision to pass the return value in registers or
using a return area pointer depends on how exactly the return type is
lowered to an LLVM IR type. For example `Option<u128>` can be lowered
as `{ i128, i128 }` in which case the x86_64 backend would use a return
area pointer, or it could be passed as `{ i32, i128 }` in which case
the x86_64 backend would pass it in registers by taking advantage of an
LLVM ABI extension that allows using 3 registers for the x86_64 sysv
call conv rather than the officially specified 2 registers.
This adjustment is only necessary for the Rust ABI as for other ABI's
the calling convention implementations in rustc_target already ensure
any return value which doesn't fit in the available amount of return
registers is passed in the right way for the current target.
Move ZST ABI handling to `rustc_target`
Currently, target specific handling of ZST function call ABI (specifically passing them indirectly instead of ignoring them) is handled in `rustc_ty_utils`, whereas all other target specific function call ABI handling is located in `rustc_target`. This PR moves the ZST handling to `rustc_target` so that all the target-specific function call ABI handling is in one place. In the process of doing so, this PR fixes#125850 by ensuring that ZST arguments are always correctly ignored in the x86-64 `"sysv64"` ABI; any code which would be affected by this fix would have ICEd before this PR. Tests are also added using `#[rustc_abi(debug)]` to ensure this behaviour does not regress.
Fixes#125850
Ensure floats are returned losslessly by the Rust ABI on 32-bit x86
Solves #115567 for the (default) `"Rust"` ABI. When compiling for 32-bit x86, this PR changes the `"Rust"` ABI to return floats indirectly instead of in x87 registers (with the exception of single `f32`s, which this PR returns in general purpose registers as they are small enough to fit in one). No change is made to the `"C"` ABI as that ABI requires x87 register usage and therefore will need a different solution.
Remove the unstable `extern "wasm"` ABI (`wasm_abi` feature tracked
in #83788).
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127513#issuecomment-2220410679
and following, this ABI is a failed experiment that did not end
up being used for anything. Keeping support for this ABI in LLVM 19
would require us to switch wasm targets to the `experimental-mv`
ABI, which we do not want to do.
It should be noted that `Abi::Wasm` was internally used for two
things: The `-Z wasm-c-abi=legacy` ABI that is still used by
default on some wasm targets, and the `extern "wasm"` ABI. Despite
both being `Abi::Wasm` internally, they were not the same. An
explicit `extern "wasm"` additionally enabled the `+multivalue`
feature.
I've opted to remove `Abi::Wasm` in this patch entirely, instead
of keeping it as an ABI with only internal usage. Both
`-Z wasm-c-abi` variants are now treated as part of the normal
C ABI, just with different different treatment in
adjust_for_foreign_abi.
