In this series of commits, I've implemented static linking for rust. The scheme I implemented was the same as my [mailing list post](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html).
The commits have more details to the nitty gritty of what went on. I've rebased this on top of my native mutex pull request (#10479), but I imagine that it will land before this lands, I just wanted to pre-emptively get all the rebase conflicts out of the way (becuase this is reorganizing building librustrt as well).
Some contentious points I want to make sure are all good:
* I've added more "compiler chooses a default" behavior than I would like, I want to make sure that this is all very clearly outlined in the code, and if not I would like to remove behavior or make it clearer.
* I want to make sure that the new "fancy suite" tests are ok (using make/python instead of another rust crate)
If we do indeed pursue this, I would be more than willing to write up a document describing how linking in rust works. I believe that this behavior should be very understandable, and the compiler should never hinder someone just because linking is a little fuzzy.
BufferedWriter::inner flushes before returning the underlying writer.
BufferedWriter::write no longer flushes the underlying writer.
LineBufferedWriter::write flushes up to the *last* newline in the input
string, not the first.
In #10422, I didn't actually test to make sure that the '-Z gen-crate-map'
option was usable before I implemented it. The crate map was indeed generated
when '-Z gen-crate-map' was specified, but the I/O factory slot was empty
because of an extra check in trans about filling in that location.
This commit both fixes that location, and checks in a "fancy test" which does
lots of fun stuff. The test will use the rustc library to compile a rust crate,
and then compile a C program to link against that crate and run the C program.
To my knowledge this is the first test of its kind, so it's a little ad-hoc, but
it seems to get the job done. We could perhaps generalize running tests like
this, but for now I think it's fine to have this sort of functionality tucked
away in a test.
This infrastructure is meant to support runnings tests that involve various
interesting interdependencies about the types of crates being linked or possibly
interacting with C libraries. The goal of these make tests is to not restrict
them to a particular test runner, but allow each test to run its own tests.
To this end, there is a new src/test/run-make directory which has sub-folders of
tests. Each test requires a `Makefile`, and running the tests constitues simply
running `make` inside the directory. The new target is `check-stageN-rmake`.
These tests will have the destination directory (as TMPDIR) and the local rust
compiler (as RUSTC) passed along to them. There is also some helpful
cross-platform utilities included in src/test/run-make/tools.mk to aid with
compiling C programs and running them.
The impetus for adding this new test suite is to allow various interesting forms
of testing rust linkage. All of the tests initially added are various flavors of
compiling Rust and C with one another as well as just making sure that rust
linkage works in general.
Closes#10434
This commit alters the build process of the compiler to build a static
librustrt.a instead of a dynamic version. This means that we can stop
distributing librustrt as well as default linking against it in the compiler.
This also means that if you attempt to build rust code without libstd, it will
no longer work if there are any landing pads in play. The reason for this is
that LLVM and rustc will emit calls to the various upcalls in librustrt used to
manage exception handling. In theory we could split librustrt into librustrt and
librustupcall. We would then distribute librustupcall and link to it for all
programs using landing pads, but I would rather see just one librustrt artifact
and simplify the build process.
The major benefit of doing this is that building a static rust library for use
in embedded situations all of a sudden just became a whole lot more feasible.
Closes#3361
This commit implements the support necessary for generating both intermediate
and result static rust libraries. This is an implementation of my thoughts in
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html.
When compiling a library, we still retain the "lib" option, although now there
are "rlib", "staticlib", and "dylib" as options for crate_type (and these are
stackable). The idea of "lib" is to generate the "compiler default" instead of
having too choose (although all are interchangeable). For now I have left the
"complier default" to be a dynamic library for size reasons.
Of the rust libraries, lib{std,extra,rustuv} will bootstrap with an
rlib/dylib pair, but lib{rustc,syntax,rustdoc,rustpkg} will only be built as a
dynamic object. I chose this for size reasons, but also because you're probably
not going to be embedding the rustc compiler anywhere any time soon.
Other than the options outlined above, there are a few defaults/preferences that
are now opinionated in the compiler:
* If both a .dylib and .rlib are found for a rust library, the compiler will
prefer the .rlib variant. This is overridable via the -Z prefer-dynamic option
* If generating a "lib", the compiler will generate a dynamic library. This is
overridable by explicitly saying what flavor you'd like (rlib, staticlib,
dylib).
* If no options are passed to the command line, and no crate_type is found in
the destination crate, then an executable is generated
With this change, you can successfully build a rust program with 0 dynamic
dependencies on rust libraries. There is still a dynamic dependency on
librustrt, but I plan on removing that in a subsequent commit.
This change includes no tests just yet. Our current testing
infrastructure/harnesses aren't very amenable to doing flavorful things with
linking, so I'm planning on adding a new mode of testing which I believe belongs
as a separate commit.
Closes#552
- Removed module reexport workaround for the integer module macros
- Removed legacy reexports of `cmp::{min, max}` in the integer module macros
- Combined a few macros in `vec` into one
- Documented a few issues
This adds an implementation of the Chase-Lev work-stealing deque to libstd
under std::rt::deque. I've been unable to break the implementation of the deque
itself, and it's not super highly optimized just yet (everything uses a SeqCst
memory ordering).
The major snag in implementing the chase-lev deque is that the buffers used to
store data internally cannot get deallocated back to the OS. In the meantime, a
shared buffer pool (synchronized by a normal mutex) is used to
deallocate/allocate buffers from. This is done in hope of not overcommitting too
much memory. It is in theory possible to eventually free the buffers, but one
must be very careful in doing so.
I was unable to get some good numbers from src/test/bench tests (I don't think
many of them are slamming the work queue that much), but I was able to get some
good numbers from one of my own tests. In a recent rewrite of select::select(),
I found that my implementation was incredibly slow due to contention on the
shared work queue. Upon switching to the parallel deque, I saw the contention
drop to 0 and the runtime go from 1.6s to 0.9s with the most amount of time
spent in libuv awakening the schedulers (plus allocations).
Closes#4877
This adds an implementation of the Chase-Lev work-stealing deque to libstd
under std::rt::deque. I've been unable to break the implementation of the deque
itself, and it's not super highly optimized just yet (everything uses a SeqCst
memory ordering).
The major snag in implementing the chase-lev deque is that the buffers used to
store data internally cannot get deallocated back to the OS. In the meantime, a
shared buffer pool (synchronized by a normal mutex) is used to
deallocate/allocate buffers from. This is done in hope of not overcommitting too
much memory. It is in theory possible to eventually free the buffers, but one
must be very careful in doing so.
I was unable to get some good numbers from src/test/bench tests (I don't think
many of them are slamming the work queue that much), but I was able to get some
good numbers from one of my own tests. In a recent rewrite of select::select(),
I found that my implementation was incredibly slow due to contention on the
shared work queue. Upon switching to the parallel deque, I saw the contention
drop to 0 and the runtime go from 1.6s to 0.9s with the most amount of time
spent in libuv awakening the schedulers (plus allocations).
Closes#4877
While tracking down how this function became dead, identified a spot
(@fn cannot happen) where we probably would prefer to ICE rather than
pass silently; so added fail! invocation.
While tracking down how this function became dead, identified a spot
(@fn cannot happen) where we probably would prefer to ICE rather than
pass silently; so added fail! invocation.
I have written some benchmark tests to `push`, `push_many`, `join`,
`join_many` and `ends_with_path`.
Let me know what you think (@cmr).
Thanks in advance.
Previously, `//// foo` and `/*** foo ***/` were accepted as doc comments. This
changes that, so that only `/// foo` and `/** foo ***/` are accepted. This
confuses many newcomers and it seems weird.
Also update the manual for these changes, and modernify the EBNF for comments.
Closes#10638
Previously, `//// foo` and `/*** foo ***/` were accepted as doc comments. This
changes that, so that only `/// foo` and `/** foo ***/` are accepted. This
confuses many newcomers and it seems weird.
Also update the manual for these changes, and modernify the EBNF for comments.
Closes#10638
