`tests/ui`: A New Order [25/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@tgross35`
This does change the logic a bit: previously, we didn't forward reverse
implications of negated features to the backend, instead relying on the backend
to handle the implication itself.
organize and extend forbidden target feature tests
In particular this adds some loongarch tests for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135015, Cc `@heiher`
Seems like the tests change so much git does not detect the renames; a commit-by-commit review should help.
try-job: `x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-*`
Because RISC-V Calling Conventions note that:
> This means code targeting the Zfinx extension always uses the ILP32,
> ILP32E or LP64 integer calling-convention only ABIs as there is no
> dedicated hardware floating-point register file.
{ILP32,LP64}[FD] ABIs with hardware floating-point calling conventions
are incompatible with the "Zfinx" extension.
This commit adds "zfinx" to the incompatible feature list to those ABIs
and tests whether trying to add "zdinx" (that is analogous to "zfinx" but
in double-precision) on a LP64D ABI configuration results in an error
(it also tests extension implication; "Zdinx" requires "Zfinx" extension).
Link: RISC-V psABI specification version 1.0
<https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/releases/tag/v1.0>
Emit `unused_attributes` for `#[inline]` on exported functions
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes, which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it doesn't work.
r? saethlin as the instantiation guy
Procedurally, I think this should be fine to merge without any lang involvement, as this only does a very minor extension to an existing lint.
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes,
which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the
compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is
indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol
since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an
unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too
complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want
to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying
that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still
be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this
attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it
doesn't work.
Stabilize target_feature_11
# Stabilization report
This is an updated version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116114, which is itself a redo of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!```
## Summary
Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes.
Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits.
However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe.
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() {
// Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure
// that AVX is available first.
unsafe {
avx2();
}
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() {
// Calling `avx2` here is safe.
avx2();
}
```
Moreover, once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe:
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() -> fn() {
// Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here.
avx2
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
// `avx2` coerces to fn() here
avx2
}
```
See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour.
## Test cases
Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](f6cb952dc1/tests/ui/target-feature).
## Edge cases
### Closures
* [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73631)
Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits.
```rust
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn qux() {
let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe
let f: fn() = my_closure;
}
```
This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute.
This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and:
- on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call.
- on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller.
If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again).
**Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in #73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” .
This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. 2e29bdf908/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope".
* [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 #111836](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111836)
Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility.
### ABI concerns
* [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features #116558](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558)
The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (#133102, #132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur.
### Special functions
The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods.
This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs:
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` #108645](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108645)
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations #108646](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108646)
* [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 #109411](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109411)
* [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions #115910](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115910)
## Documentation
* Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1181)
---
cc tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69098
cc ```@workingjubilee```
cc ```@RalfJung```
r? ```@rust-lang/lang```
Add a notion of "some ABIs require certain target features"
I think I finally found the right shape for the data and checks that I recently added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133099, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133417, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134337: we have a notion of "this ABI requires the following list of target features, and it is incompatible with the following list of target features". Both `-Ctarget-feature` and `#[target_feature]` are updated to ensure we follow the rules of the ABI. This removes all the "toggleability" stuff introduced before, though we do keep the notion of a fully "forbidden" target feature -- this is needed to deal with target features that are actual ABI switches, and hence are needed to even compute the list of required target features.
We always explicitly (un)set all required and in-conflict features, just to avoid potential trouble caused by the default features of whatever the base CPU is. We do this *before* applying `-Ctarget-feature` to maintain backward compatibility; this poses a slight risk of missing some implicit feature dependencies in LLVM but has the advantage of not breaking users that deliberately toggle ABI-relevant target features. They get a warning but the feature does get toggled the way they requested.
For now, our logic supports x86, ARM, and RISC-V (just like the previous logic did). Unsurprisingly, RISC-V is the nicest. ;)
As a side-effect this also (unstably) allows *enabling* `x87` when that is harmless. I used the opportunity to mark SSE2 as required on x86-64, to better match the actual logic in LLVM and because all x86-64 chips do have SSE2. This infrastructure also prepares us for requiring SSE on x86-32 when we want to use that for our ABI (and for float semantics sanity), see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133611, but no such change is happening in this PR.
r? `@workingjubilee`
mark some target features as 'forbidden' so they cannot be (un)set with -Ctarget-feature
The context for this is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116344: some target features change the way floats are passed between functions. Changing those target features is unsound as code compiled for the same target may now use different ABIs.
So this introduces a new concept of "forbidden" target features (on top of the existing "stable " and "unstable" categories), and makes it a hard error to (un)set such a target feature. For now, the x86 and ARM feature `soft-float` is on that list. We'll have to make some effort to collect more relevant features, and similar features from other targets, but that can happen after the basic infrastructure for this landed. (These features are being collected in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131799.)
I've made this a warning for now to give people some time to speak up if this would break something.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/780
The failure output is:
```
SplitVectorOperand Op #1: t51: i32 = llvm.wasm.alltrue TargetConstant:i32<12408>, t50
rustc-LLVM ERROR: Do not know how to split this operator's operand!
```
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
`rustc_codegen_llvm` and `rustc_codegen_gcc` duplicated logic for
checking if tied target features were partially enabled. This commit
consolidates these checks into `rustc_codegen_ssa` in the
`codegen_fn_attrs` query, which also is run pre-monomorphisation for
each function, which ensures that this check is run for unused functions,
as would be expected.
rustc_target: Add various aarch64 features
Add various aarch64 features already supported by LLVM and Linux.
Additionally include some comment fixes to ensure consistency of feature names with the Arm ARM.
Compiler support for features added to stdarch by https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/pull/1614.
Tracking issue for unstable aarch64 features is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127764.
List of added features:
- FEAT_CSSC
- FEAT_ECV
- FEAT_FAMINMAX
- FEAT_FLAGM2
- FEAT_FP8
- FEAT_FP8DOT2
- FEAT_FP8DOT4
- FEAT_FP8FMA
- FEAT_HBC
- FEAT_LSE128
- FEAT_LSE2
- FEAT_LUT
- FEAT_MOPS
- FEAT_LRCPC3
- FEAT_SVE_B16B16
- FEAT_SVE2p1
- FEAT_WFxT
- FEAT_SME
- FEAT_SME_F16F16
- FEAT_SME_F64F64
- FEAT_SME_F8F16
- FEAT_SME_F8F32
- FEAT_SME_FA64
- FEAT_SME_I16I64
- FEAT_SME_LUTv2
- FEAT_SME2
- FEAT_SME2p1
- FEAT_SSVE_FP8DOT2
- FEAT_SSVE_FP8DOT4
- FEAT_SSVE_FP8FMA
FEAT_FPMR is added in the first commit and then removed in a separate one to highlight it being removed from upstream LLVM 19. The intention is for it to be detectable at runtime through stdarch but not have a corresponding Rust compile-time feature.
