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```
show supported register classes in error message
a simple diagnostic change that shows the supported register classes when an invalid one is found.
This information can be hard to find (especially for unstable targets), and this message now gives at least something to try or search for. I've followed the pattern for invalid clobber ABIs.
`@rustbot` label +A-inline-assembly
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
When labels are present, the `noreturn` option really means that asm block
won't fallthrough -- if labels are present, then outputs can still be
meaningfully used.
`asm!()` is forced to be wrapped inside unsafe. If there's no special
treatment, the label blocks would also always be unsafe with no way
of opting out.
Tweak type inference for `const` operands in inline asm
Previously these would be treated like integer literals and default to `i32` if a type could not be determined. To allow for forward-compatibility with `str` constants in the future, this PR changes type inference to use an unbound type variable instead.
The actual type checking is deferred until after typeck where we still ensure that the final type for the `const` operand is an integer type.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
There are a few tests that depend on some target features **not** being
enabled by default, and usually they are correct with the default x86-64
target CPU. However, in downstream builds we have modified the default
to fit our distros -- `x86-64-v2` in RHEL 9 and `x86-64-v3` in RHEL 10
-- and the latter especially trips tests that expect not to have AVX.
These cases are few enough that we can just set them back explicitly.
Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`
Fixes#121593
Displays the register size information obtained from `suggest_modifier()` and `default_modifier()`.
LLVM 18 requires the evex512 feature to allow use of zmm registers.
LLVM automatically sets it when using a generic CPU, but not when
`-C target-cpu` is specified. This will result either in backend
legalization crashes, or code unexpectedly using ymm instead of
zmm registers.
For now, make sure that `avx512*` features imply `evex512`. Long
term we'll probably have to deal with the AVX10 mess somehow.
Currently the test passes with the LLVM backend as the codegen unit
partitioning logic happens to place both the global_asm!() and the
function which calls the function defined by the global_asm!() in the
same CGU. With the Cranelift backend it breaks however as it will place
all assembly in separate codegen units to be passed to an external
linker.
The `asm!` and `global_asm!` macros require their operands to appear
strictly in the following order:
- Template strings
- Positional operands
- Named operands
- Explicit register operands
- `clobber_abi`
- `options`
This is overly strict and can be inconvienent when building complex
`asm!` statements with macros. This PR relaxes the ordering requirements
as follows:
- Template strings must still come before all other operands.
- Positional operands must still come before named and explicit register
operands.
- Named and explicit register operands can be freely mixed.
- `options` and `clobber_abi` can appear in any position.
