split `asm!` parsing and validation
This PR splits `asm!` parsing and validation into two separate steps.
The parser constructs a `Vec<RawAsmArg>`, with each element corresponding to an argument to one of the `asm!` macros.
The validation then checks things like ordering of arguments or that options are not provided twice.
The motivation is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140279, which wants to add `#[cfg(...)]` support to these arguments. This support can now be added in a straightforward way by adding an `attributes: ast::AttrVec` field to `RawAsmArg`.
An extra reason for this split is that `rustfmt` probably wants to format the assembly at some point (currently that appears to be stubbed out, and the formatting is unstable https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/issues/152).
r? ``@ghost`` (just want to look at CI for now)
cc ``@ytmimi`` we discussed asm formatting a little while ago in https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/6526. Am I correct in assuming that `AsmArgs` does not give enough information for formatting, but that `RawAsmArgs` would (it e.g. does not join information from multiple lines). This must have been an issue before?
try-job: aarch64-apple
allow `#[rustc_std_internal_symbol]` in combination with `#[naked]`
The need for this came up in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/897, but in general this seems useful and valid to allow.
Based on a quick scan, I don't think changes to the generated assembly are needed.
cc ``@bjorn3``
Move inline asm check to typeck, properly handle aliases
Pull `InlineAsmCtxt` down to `rustc_hir_typeck`, and instead of using things like `Ty::is_copy`, use the `InferCtxt`-aware methods. To fix https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/189, we also add a `try_structurally_resolve_*` call to `expr_ty`.
r? lcnr
add `naked_functions_rustic_abi` feature gate
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138997
Because the details of the rust abi are unstable, and a naked function must match its stated ABI, this feature gate keeps naked functions with a rustic abi ("Rust", "rust-cold", "rust-call" and "rust-intrinsic") unstable.
r? ````@traviscross````
add `naked_functions_target_feature` unstable feature
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568
tagging https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134213https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
This PR puts `#[target_feature(/* ... */)]` on `#[naked]` functions behind its own feature gate, so that naked functions can be stabilized. It turns out that supporting `target_feature` on naked functions is tricky on some targets, so we're splitting it out to not block stabilization of naked functions themselves. See the tracking issue for more information and workarounds.
Note that at the time of writing, the `target_features` attribute is ignored when generating code for naked functions.
r? ``@Amanieu``
Do not suggest using `-Zmacro-backtrace` for builtin macros
For macros that are implemented on the compiler, or that are annotated with `rustc_diagnostic_item`, which have arbitrary implementations from the point of view of the user and might as well be intrinsics, we do *not* mention the `-Zmacro-backtrace` flag. This includes `derive`s and standard macros like `panic!` and `format!`.
This PR adds a field to every `Span`'s `ExpnData` stating whether it comes from a builtin macro. This is determined by the macro being annotated with either `#[rustc_builtin_macro]` or `#[rustc_diagnostic_item]`. An alternative to using these attributes that already exist for other uses would be to introduce another attribute like `#[rustc_no_backtrace]` to have finer control on which macros are affected (for example, an error within `vec![]` now doesn't mention the backtrace, but one could make the case that it should). Ideally, instead of carrying this information in the `ExpnData` we'd instead try to query the `DefId` of the macro (that is already stored) to see if it is annotated in some way, but we do not have access to the `TyCtxt` from `rustc_errors`.
r? `@petrochenkov`
rustc_target: Add target features for LoongArch v1.1
This patch adds new target features for LoongArch v1.1:
* div32
* lam-bh
* lamcas
* ld-seq-sa
* scq
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;
|
```
Some asm! diagnostic adjustments and a papercut fix
Best reviewed commit by commit.
We forgot a `normalize` call in intrinsic checking, causing us to allow literal integers, but not named constants containing that literal. This can in theory affect stable code, but only if libstd contains a stable SIMD type that has an array length that is a named constant. I'd assume we'd have noticed by now due to asm! rejecting those outright.
The error message left me scratching my head for a bit, so I added some extra information to the diagnostic, too.
Pass end position of span through inline ASM cookie
Before this PR, only the start position of the span was passed though the inline ASM cookie to diagnostics. LLVM 19 has full support for 64-bit inline ASM cookies; this PR uses that to pass the end position of the span in the upper 32 bits, meaning inline ASM diagnostics now point at the entire line the error occurred on, not just the first character of it.
codegen `#[naked]` functions using global asm
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957Fixes#124375
This implements the approach suggested in the tracking issue: use the existing global assembly infrastructure to emit the body of `#[naked]` functions. The main advantage is that we now have full control over what gets generated, and are no longer dependent on LLVM not sneakily messing with our output (inlining, adding extra instructions, etc).
I discussed this approach with `@Amanieu` and while I think the general direction is correct, there is probably a bunch of stuff that needs to change or move around here. I'll leave some inline comments on things that I'm not sure about.
Combined with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127853, if both accepted, I think that resolves all steps from the tracking issue.
r? `@Amanieu`
