In PR 90877 T-lang decided not to remove `intrinsics::pref_align_of`.
However, the intrinsic and its supporting code
1. is a nightly feature, so can be removed at compiler/libs discretion
2. requires considerable effort in the compiler to support, as it
necessarily complicates every single site reasoning about alignment
3. has been justified based on relevance to codegen, but it is only a
requirement for C++ (not C, not Rust) stack frame layout for AIX,
in ways Rust would not consider even with increased C++ interop
4. is only used by rustc to overalign some globals, not correctness
5. can be adequately replaced by other rules for globals, as it mostly
affects alignments for a few types under 16 bytes of alignment
6. has only one clear benefactor: automating C -> Rust translation
for GNU extensions like `__alignof`
7. such code was likely intended to be `alignof` or `_Alignof`,
because the GNU extension is a "false friend" of the C keyword,
which makes the choice to support such a mapping very questionable
8. makes it easy to do incorrect codegen in the compiler by its mere
presence as usual Rust rules of alignment (e.g. `size == align * N`)
do not hold with preferred alignment
The implementation is clearly damaging the code quality of the compiler.
Thus it is within the compiler team's purview to simply rip it out.
If T-lang wishes to have this intrinsic restored for c2rust's benefit,
it would have to use a radically different implementation that somehow
does not cause internal incorrectness.
Until then, remove the intrinsic and its supporting code, as one tool
and an ill-considered GCC extension cannot justify risking correctness.
Because we touch a fair amount of the compiler to change this at all,
and unfortunately the duplication of AbiAndPrefAlign is deep-rooted,
we keep an "AbiAlign" type which we can wean code off later.
Do not ignore uninhabited types for function-call ABI purposes. (Remove BackendRepr::Uninhabited)
Accepted MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/832Fixes#135802
Do not consider the inhabitedness of a type for function call ABI purposes.
* Remove the [`rustc_abi::BackendRepr::Uninhabited`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_abi/enum.BackendRepr.html) variant
* Instead calculate the `BackendRepr` of uninhabited types "normally" (as though they were not uninhabited "at the top level", but still considering inhabitedness of variants to determine enum layout, etc)
* Add an `uninhabited: bool` field to [`rustc_abi::LayoutData`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_abi/struct.LayoutData.html) so inhabitedness of a `LayoutData` can still be queried when necessary (e.g. when determining if an enum variant needs a tag value allocated to it).
This should not affect type layouts (size/align/field offset); this should only affect function call ABI, and only of uninhabited types.
cc ``@RalfJung``
This commit removes the `avr-unknown-gnu-atmega328` target and replaces
it with a more generic `avr-none` variant that must be specialized with
the `-C target-cpu` flag (e.g. `-C target-cpu=atmega328p`).
Also this generates an error when `repr` is used on a trait method and
the `fn_align` feature is not enabled. Looks like that was missed here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110313/files
Which first enables the align attribute on trait methods.
Disable dead variant removal for `#[repr(C)]` enums.
This prevents removing dead branches from a `#[repr(C)]` enum (they now get discriminants allocated as if they were inhabited).
Implementation notes: ABI of something like
```rust
#[repr(C)]
enum Foo {
Foo(!),
}
```
is still `Uninhabited`, but its layout is now computed as if all the branches were inhabited.
This seemed to me like a proper way to do it, especially given that ABI sanity check explicitly asserts that type-level uninhabitedness implies ABI uninhabitedness.
This probably needs some sort of FCP (given that it changes `#[repr(C)]` layout, which is a stable guarantee), but I’m not sure how to call for one or which team is the most relevant.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/500.
