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.
General housekeeping:
- Use less reexports from its rustc_target era
- Unify some imports as a result
- Split the Reg(ister) types into their own files
Generally moving stuff around because it makes the crate more consistent.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
