It's a better name, and lets "active features" refer to the features
that are active in a particular program, due to being declared or
enabled by the edition.
The commit also renames `Features::enabled` as `Features::active` to
match this; I changed my mind and have decided that "active" is a little
better thatn "enabled" for this, particularly because a number of
pre-existing comments use "active" in this way.
Finally, the commit renames `Status::Stable` as `Status::Accepted`, to
match `ACCEPTED_FEATURES`.
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Implement `-Clink-self-contained=-linker` opt out
This implements the `-Clink-self-contained` opt out necessary to switch to lld by changing rustc's defaults instead of cargo's.
Components that are enabled and disabled on the CLI are recorded, for the purpose of being merged with the ones which the target spec will declare (I'll open another PR for that tomorrow, for easier review).
For MCP510, we now check whether using the self-contained linker is disabled on the CLI. Right now it would only be sensible to with `-Zgcc-ld=lld` (and I'll add some checks that we don't both enable and disable a component on the CLI in a future PR), but the goal is to simplify adding the check of the target's enabled components here in the follow-up PRs.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Bring back generic parameters for indices in rustc_abi and make it compile on stable
This effectively reverses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107163, allowing rust-analyzer to depend on this crate again,
It also moves some glob imports / expands them in the first commit because they made it more difficult for me to reason about things.
Add Zba, Zbb, and Zbs as target features for riscv64-linux-android
This pull request adds the Zba, Zbb, and Zbs target features to the `riscv64-linux-android` target specification. These features have been enabled and tested internally in Android infrastructure.
Add Minimal Std implementation for UEFI
# Implemented modules:
1. alloc
2. os_str
3. env
4. math
# Related Links
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100499
API Change Proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/87
# Additional Information
This was originally part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100316. Since that PR was becoming too unwieldy and cluttered, and with suggestion from `@dvdhrm,` I have extracted a minimal std implementation to this PR.
The example in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/unknown-uefi.md` has been tested for `x86_64-unknown-uefi` and `i686-unknown-uefi` in OVMF. It would be great if someone more familiar with AARCH64 can help with testing for that target.
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
Raise minimum supported Apple OS versions
This implements the proposal to raise the minimum supported Apple OS versions as laid out in the now-completed MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556).
As of this PR, rustc and the stdlib now support these versions as the baseline:
- macOS: 10.12 Sierra
- iOS: 10
- tvOS: 10
- watchOS: 5 (Unchanged)
In addition to everything this breaks indirectly, these changes also erase the `armv7-apple-ios` target (currently tier 3) because the oldest supported iOS device now uses ARMv7s. Not sure what the policy around tier3 target removal is but shimming it is not an option due to the linker refusing.
[Per comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556#issuecomment-1297175073), this requires a FCP to merge. cc `@wesleywiser.`
The -macabi targets are iOS running on MacOS, and they use the runtime
libraries for MacOS, thus they have the same sanitizers available as the
*-apple-darwin targets.
Add `i686-pc-windows-gnullvm` triple
With various fixes that are already present in the code, a fully working i686 target can join other targets in `*-windows-gnullvm` family. Again this will be mostly useful for MSYS2 right now but I plan to open MCP for providing at least prebuilt std for `windows-gnullvm` as the next step which will expand usability of these targets.
Tier 3 policy:
> A 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.)
I pledge to do my best maintaining it, MSYS2 is one of interested consumers. Previously added `gnullvm` triples proved there is not much maintenance 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.
This triple name is consistent with other targets and was discussed at [`t-compiler/LLVM+mingw-w64 Windows targets`](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/LLVM.2Bmingw-w64.20Windows.20targets)
> 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 think the explanation in platform support doc is enough to make this aspect clear.
> 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.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
It's even more liberal than already existing `*-pc-windows-gnu`.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> 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.
There are no new dependencies/features required.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. 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.
As previously said it's using open source tools only.
> "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.
There are no such terms present.
> 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.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
Again I'm not the reviewer here.
> 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.
It seems to work, at least for cross compilation.
> 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 binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Building is described in platform support doc, running tests doesn't work right now (without hacks) because Rust's build system doesn't seem to support testing targets built from `.json`.
Docs will be updated once this lands in beta allowing master branch to build and run tests without `.json` files.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
I believe I didn't break any other 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.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
Always add LC_BUILD_VERSION for metadata object files
As of Xcode 15 Apple's linker has become a bit more strict about the warnings it produces. One of those new warnings requires all valid Mach-O object files in an archive to have a LC_BUILD_VERSION load command:
```
ld: warning: no platform load command found in 'ARCHIVE[arm64][2106](lib.rmeta)', assuming: iOS-simulator
```
This was already being done for Mac Catalyst so this change expands this logic to include it for all Apple platforms. I filed this behavior change as FB12546320 and was told it was the new intentional behavior.
