Pass 128-bit C-style enum enumerator values to LLVM
Pass the full 128 bits of C-style enum enumerators through to LLVM. This means that debuginfo for C-style repr128 enums is now emitted correctly for DWARF platforms (as compared to not being correctly emitted on any platform).
Tracking issue: #56071
ci: Upgrade dist-x86_64-netbsd to NetBSD 9.0
This is another step in toolchain upgrades for LLVM 16, which will need at least GCC 7.1.
Our previous NetBSD 8.0 cross-toolchain used its system GCC 5.5. While there are newer versions available in pkgsrc, I could not get those working for cross-compilation. Upgrading to NetBSD 9.0 gets us GCC 7.4, which is sufficient for now.
This will affect the compatibility of the build we ship for `x86_64-unknown-netbsd`, but others may still build their own from source if that is needed. It is expected that NetBSD 8 will reach EOL soon anyway, approximately one month after 10 is released, but there is no firm date for that.
LLVM 15 added `Optional::has_value`, and LLVM `main` (16) has deprecated
`hasValue`. However, its `explicit operator bool` does the same thing,
and was added long ago, so we can use that across our full LLVM range of
compatibility.
Remove support for legacy PM
This removes support for optimizing with LLVM's legacy pass manager, as well as the unstable `-Znew-llvm-pass-manager` option. We have been defaulting to the new PM since LLVM 13 (except for s390x that waited for 14), and LLVM 15 removed support altogether. The only place we still use the legacy PM is for writing the output file, just like `llc` does.
cc #74705
r? ``@nikic``
Add tier-3 support for powerpc64 and riscv64 openbsd
# powerpc64
- MCP for [powerpc64-unknown-openbsd tier-3 support](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/551)
- only need to add spec definition in rustc_target
# riscv64
- MCP for [riscv64-unknown-openbsd tier-3 support](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/552)
- add spec definition in rustc_target
- follow freebsd about avoiding linking with `libatomic`
Use object instead of LLVM for reading bitcode from rlibs
Together with changes I plan to make as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97485 this will allow entirely removing usage of LLVM's archive reader and thus allow removing `archive_ro.rs` and `ArchiveWrapper.cpp`.
No functional changes intended.
LLVM commit 633f5663c3 removed `createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass`.
This adapts PassWrapper similarly to the example mentioned upstream: 633f5663c3.
Update the minimum external LLVM to 13
With this change, we'll have stable support for LLVM 13 through 15 (pending release).
For reference, the previous increase to LLVM 12 was #90175.
r? `@nagisa`
Add support for generating unique profraw files by default when using `-C instrument-coverage`
Currently, enabling the rustc flag `-C instrument-coverage` instruments the given crate and by default uses the naming scheme `default.profraw` for any instrumented profile files generated during the execution of a binary linked against this crate. This leads to multiple binaries being executed overwriting one another and causing only the last executable run to contain actual coverage results.
This can be overridden by manually setting the environment variable `LLVM_PROFILE_FILE` to use a unique naming scheme.
This PR adds a change to add support for a reasonable default for rustc to use when enabling coverage instrumentation similar to how the Rust compiler treats generating these same `profraw` files when PGO is enabled.
The new naming scheme is set to `default_%m_%p.profraw` to ensure the uniqueness of each file being generated using [LLVMs special pattern strings](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html#running-the-instrumented-program).
Today the compiler sets the default for PGO `profraw` files to `default_%m.profraw` to ensure a unique file for each run. The same can be done for the instrumented profile files generated via the `-C instrument-coverage` flag as well which LLVM has API support for.
Linked Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100381
r? `@wesleywiser`
Fixes a warning:
warning: llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp:159:11: warning: enumeration values 'AllocatedPointer' and 'AllocAlign' not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
warning: switch (Kind) {
warning: ^
Which was fall out from 130a1df71e.
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
While we're here, we also emit allocator attributes on
__rust_alloc_zeroed. This should allow LLVM to perform more
optimizations for zeroed blocks, and probably fixes#90032. [This
comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24194#issuecomment-308791157)
mentions "weird UB-like behaviour with bitvec iterators in
rustc_data_structures" so we may need to back this change out if things
go wrong.
The new test cases require LLVM 15, so we copy them into LLVM
14-supporting versions, which we can delete when we drop LLVM 14.
Add support for LLVM ShadowCallStack.
LLVMs ShadowCallStack provides backward edge control flow integrity protection by using a separate shadow stack to store and retrieve a function's return address.
LLVM currently only supports this for AArch64 targets. The x18 register is used to hold the pointer to the shadow stack, and therefore this only works on ABIs which reserve x18. Further details are available in the [LLVM ShadowCallStack](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html) docs.
# Usage
`-Zsanitizer=shadow-call-stack`
# Comments/Caveats
* Currently only enabled for the aarch64-linux-android target
* Requires the platform to define a runtime to initialize the shadow stack, see the [LLVM docs](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html) for more detail.
Allow to disable thinLTO buffer to support lto-embed-bitcode lld feature
Hello
This change is to fix issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84395) in which passing "-lto-embed-bitcode=optimized" to lld when linking rust code via linker-plugin-lto doesn't produce the expected result.
Instead of emitting a single unified module into a llvmbc section of the linked elf, it emits multiple submodules.
This is caused because rustc emits the BC modules after running llvm `createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass` pass.
Which in turn triggers a thinLTO linkage and causes the said issue.
This patch allows via compiler flag (-Cemit-thin-lto=<bool>) to select between running `createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass` and `createBitcodeWriterPass`.
Note this pattern of selecting between those 2 passes is common inside of LLVM code.
The default is to match the old behavior.
Enable check-cfg in stage0
Now that the bootstrap cargo supports `rustc-check-cfg` we can now enable it with `-Zcheck-cfg=output` and use it in `rustc_llvm` to unblock `--check-cfg` support in stage0.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Remove branch target prologues from `#[naked] fn`
This patch hacks around rust-lang/rust#98768 for now via injecting appropriate attributes into the LLVMIR we emit for naked functions. I intend to pursue this upstream so that these attributes can be removed in general, but it's slow going wading through C++ for me.
Revert "Work around invalid DWARF bugs for fat LTO"
Since September, the toolchain has not been generating reliable DWARF
information for static variables when LTO is on. This has affected
projects in the embedded space where the use of LTO is typical. In our
case, it has kept us from bumping past the 2021-09-22 nightly toolchain
lest our debugger break. This has been a pretty dramatic regression for
people using debuggers and static variables. See #90357 for more info
and a repro case.
This commit is a mechanical revert of
d5de680e20 from PR #89041, which caused
the issue. (Note on that PR that the commit's author has requested it be
reverted.)
I have locally verified that this fixes#90357 by restoring the
functionality of both the repro case I posted on that bug, and debugger
behavior on real programs. There do not appear to be test cases for this
in the toolchain; if I've missed them, point me at 'em and I'll update
them.
Adding the option to control from rustc CLI
if the resulted ".o" bitcode module files are with
thinLTO info or regular LTO info.
Allows using "-lto-embed-bitcode=optimized" during linkage
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Ziv Dunkelman <ziv.dunkelman@nextsilicon.com>
This adds the typeid and `vcall_visibility` metadata to vtables when the
-Cvirtual-function-elimination flag is set.
The typeid is generated in the same way as for the
`llvm.type.checked.load` intrinsic from the trait_ref.
The offset that is added to the typeid is always 0. This is because LLVM
assumes that vtables are constructed according to the definition in the
Itanium ABI. This includes an "address point" of the vtable. In C++ this
is the offset in the vtable where information for RTTI is placed. Since
there is no RTTI information in Rust's vtables, this "address point" is
always 0. This "address point" in combination with the offset passed to
the `llvm.type.checked.load` intrinsic determines the final function
that should be loaded from the vtable in the
`WholeProgramDevirtualization` pass in LLVM. That's why the
`llvm.type.checked.load` intrinsics are generated with the typeid of the
trait, rather than with that of the function that is called. This
matches what `clang` does for C++.
The vcall_visibility metadata depends on three factors:
1. LTO level: Currently this is always fat LTO, because LLVM only
supports this optimization with fat LTO.
2. Visibility of the trait: If the trait is publicly visible, VFE
can only act on its vtables after linking.
3. Number of CGUs: if there is more than one CGU, also vtables with
restricted visibility could be seen outside of the CGU, so VFE can
only act on them after linking.
To reflect this, there are three visibility levels: Public, LinkageUnit,
and TranslationUnit.
