Add Apple WatchOS compile targets
Hello,
I would like to add the following target triples for Apple WatchOS as Tier 3 platforms:
armv7k-apple-watchos
arm64_32-apple-watchos
x86_64-apple-watchos-sim
There are some pre-requisites Pull Requests:
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/456 (merged)
https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs/pull/662 (pending)
https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2717 (merged)
There will be a subsequent PR with standard library changes for WatchOS. Previous compiler and library changes were in a single PR (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94736) which is now closed in favour of separate PRs.
Many thanks!
Vlad.
### Tier 3 Target Requirements
Adds support for Apple WatchOS compile targets.
Below are details on how this target meets the requirements for tier 3:
> tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
`@deg4uss3r` has volunteered to be the target maintainer. I am also happy to help if a second maintainer is required.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
Uses the same naming as the LLVM target, and the same convention as other Apple targets.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
I don't believe there is any ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
I don't see any legal issues here.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
> If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
> Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
I see no issues with any of the above.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Only relevant to those making approval decisions.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
core and alloc can be used. std support will be added in a subsequent PR.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Use --target=<target> option to cross compile, just like any target. Tests can be run using the WatchOS simulator (see https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/running-your-app-in-the-simulator-or-on-a-device).
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I don't foresee this being a problem.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No other targets should be affected by the pull request.
Add support for embedding pretty printers via `#[debugger_visualizer]` attribute
Initial support for [RFC 3191](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3191) in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91779 was scoped to supporting embedding NatVis files using a new attribute. This PR implements the pretty printer support as stated in the RFC mentioned above.
This change includes embedding pretty printers in the `.debug_gdb_scripts` just as the pretty printers for rustc are embedded today. Also added additional tests for embedded pretty printers. Additionally cleaned up error checking so all error checking is done up front regardless of the current target.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3191
- The logic is now unified for all targets (wasm targets should also be supported now)
- Additional "symlink" files like `ld64` are eliminated
- lld-wrapper is used for propagating the correct lld flavor
- Cleanup "unwrap or exit" logic in lld-wrapper
Ensure all error checking for `#[debugger_visualizer]` is done up front and not when the `debugger_visualizer` query is run.
Clean up potential ODR violations when embedding pretty printers into the `__rustc_debug_gdb_scripts_section__` section.
Respond to PR comments and update documentation.
Cleanup `DebuggerVisualizerFile` type and other minor cleanup of queries.
Merge the queries for debugger visualizers into a single query.
Revert move of `resolve_path` to `rustc_builtin_macros`. Update dependencies in Cargo.toml for `rustc_passes`.
Respond to PR comments. Load visualizer files into opaque bytes `Vec<u8>`. Debugger visualizers for dynamically linked crates should not be embedded in the current crate.
Update the unstable book with the new feature. Add the tracking issue for the debugger_visualizer feature.
Respond to PR comments and minor cleanups.
Generate synthetic object file to ensure all exported and used symbols participate in the linking
Fix#50007 and #47384
This is the synthetic object file approach that I described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95363#issuecomment-1079932354, allowing all exported and used symbols to be linked while still allowing them to be GCed.
Related #93791, #95363
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@carbotaniuman`
check_doc_alias_value: get argument as Symbol to prevent needless string convertions
check_doc_attrs: don't alloc vec, iterate over slice. Vec introduced in #83149, but no perf run posted on merge
replace as_str() check with symbol check
get_single_str_from_tts: don't prealloc string
trivial string to str replace
LifetimeScopeForPath::NonElided use Vec<Symbol> instead of Vec<String>
AssertModuleSource use BTreeSet<Symbol> instead of BTreeSet<String>
CrateInfo.crate_name replace FxHashMap<CrateNum, String> with FxHashMap<CrateNum, Symbol>
Improve allowness of the unexpected_cfgs lint
This pull-request improve the allowness (`#[allow(...)]`) of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint.
Before this PR only crate level `#![allow(unexpected_cfgs)]` worked, now with this PR it also work when put around `cfg!` or if it is in a upper level. Making it work ~for the attributes `cfg`, `cfg_attr`, ...~ for the same level is awkward as the current code is design to give "Some parent node that is close to this macro call" (cf. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_expand/base/struct.ExpansionData.html) meaning that allow on the same line as an attribute won't work. I'm note even sure if this would be possible.
Found while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94298.
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
Stabilize `-Z print-link-args` as `--print link-args`
We have stable options for adding linker arguments; we should have a
stable option to help debug linker arguments.
Add documentation for the new option. In the documentation, make it clear that
the *exact* format of the output is not a stable guarantee.
`thorin` is a Rust implementation of a DWARF packaging utility that
supports reading DWARF objects from archive files (i.e. rlibs) and
therefore is better suited for integration into rustc.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
In #79570, `-Z split-dwarf-kind={none,single,split}` was replaced by `-C
split-debuginfo={off,packed,unpacked}`. `-C split-debuginfo`'s packed
and unpacked aren't exact parallels to single and split, respectively.
On Unix, `-C split-debuginfo=packed` will put debuginfo into object
files and package debuginfo into a DWARF package file (`.dwp`) and
`-C split-debuginfo=unpacked` will put debuginfo into dwarf object files
and won't package it.
In the initial implementation of Split DWARF, split mode wrote sections
which did not require relocation into a DWARF object (`.dwo`) file which
was ignored by the linker and then packaged those DWARF objects into
DWARF packages (`.dwp`). In single mode, sections which did not require
relocation were written into object files but ignored by the linker and
were not packaged. However, both split and single modes could be
packaged or not, the primary difference in behaviour was where the
debuginfo sections that did not require link-time relocation were
written (in a DWARF object or the object file).
This commit re-introduces a `-Z split-dwarf-kind` flag, which can be
used to pick between split and single modes when `-C split-debuginfo` is
used to enable Split DWARF (either packed or unpacked).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Remove `SymbolStr`
This was originally proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74554#discussion_r466203544. As well as removing the icky `SymbolStr` type, it allows the removal of a lot of `&` and `*` occurrences.
Best reviewed one commit at a time.
r? `@oli-obk`
Apply path remapping to DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name when producing split DWARF
`--remap-path-prefix` doesn't apply to paths to `.o` (in case of packed) or `.dwo` (in case of unpacked) files in `DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name`. GCC also has this bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91888
We already use the object crate for generating uncompressed .rmeta
metadata object files. This switches the generation of compressed
.rustc object files to use the object crate as well. These have
slightly different requirements in that .rmeta should be completely
excluded from any final compilation artifacts, while .rustc should
be part of shared objects, but not loaded into memory.
The primary motivation for this change is #90326: In LLVM 14, the
current way of setting section flags (and in particular, preventing
the setting of SHF_ALLOC) will no longer work. There are other ways
we could work around this, but switching to the object crate seems
like the most elegant, as we already use it for .rmeta, and as it
makes this independent of the codegen backend. In particular, we
don't need separate handling in codegen_llvm and codegen_gcc.
codegen_cranelift should be able to reuse the implementation as
well, though I have omitted that here, as it is not based on
codegen_ssa.
This change mostly extracts the existing code for .rmeta handling
to allow using it for .rustc as well, and adjust the codegen
infrastructure to handle the metadata object file separately: We
no longer create a backend-specific module for it, and directly
produce the compiled module instead.
This does not fix#90326 by itself yet, as .llvmbc will need to be
handled separately.
Leave -Z strip available temporarily as an alias, to avoid breaking
cargo until cargo transitions to using -C strip. (If the user passes
both, the -C version wins.)
