As experimentation in 115242 has shown looks better than `coldcc`.
And *don't* use a different convention for cold on Windows, because that actually ends up making things worse.
cc tracking issue 97544
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #110435 (rustdoc-json: Add test for field ordering.)
- #111891 (feat: `riscv-interrupt-{m,s}` calling conventions)
- #114377 (test_get_dbpath_for_term(): handle non-utf8 paths (fix FIXME))
- #114469 (Detect method not found on arbitrary self type with different mutability)
- #114587 (Convert Const to Allocation in smir)
- #114670 (Don't use `type_of` to determine if item has intrinsic shim)
Failed merges:
- #114599 (Add impl trait declarations to SMIR)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets
this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's
[`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling
e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking
visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to
be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack
frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the
registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best
context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it
knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an
implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every
register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt
handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after
its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes
no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For
a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to
[the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM
does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention
directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for
differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be
aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode
interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed
through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no
appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
Add a new `compare_bytes` intrinsic instead of calling `memcmp` directly
As discussed in #113435, this lets the backends be the place that can have the "don't call the function if n == 0" logic, if it's needed for the target. (I didn't actually *add* those checks, though, since as I understood it we didn't actually need them on known targets?)
Doing this also let me make it `const` (unstable), which I don't think `extern "C" fn memcmp` can be.
cc `@RalfJung` `@Amanieu`
Resurrect: rustc_target: Add alignment to indirectly-passed by-value types, correcting the alignment of byval on x86 in the process.
Same as #111551, which I [accidentally closed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111551#issuecomment-1571222612) :/
---
This resurrects PR #103830, which has sat idle for a while.
Beyond #103830, this also:
- fixes byval alignment for types containing vectors on Darwin (see `tests/codegen/align-byval-vector.rs`)
- fixes byval alignment for overaligned types on x86 Windows (see `tests/codegen/align-byval.rs`)
- fixes ABI for types with 128bit requested alignment on ARM64 Linux (see `tests/codegen/aarch64-struct-align-128.rs`)
r? `@nikic`
---
`@pcwalton's` original PR description is reproduced below:
Commit 88e4d2c from five years ago removed
support for alignment on indirectly-passed arguments because of problems with
the `i686-pc-windows-msvc` target. Unfortunately, the `memcpy` optimizations I
recently added to LLVM 16 depend on this to forward `memcpy`s. This commit
attempts to fix the problems with `byval` parameters on that target and now
correctly adds the `align` attribute.
The problem is summarized in [this comment] by `@eddyb.` Briefly, 32-bit x86 has
special alignment rules for `byval` parameters: for the most part, their
alignment is forced to 4. This is not well-documented anywhere but in the Clang
source. I looked at the logic in Clang `TargetInfo.cpp` and tried to replicate
it here. The relevant methods in that file are
`X86_32ABIInfo::getIndirectResult()` and
`X86_32ABIInfo::getTypeStackAlignInBytes()`. The `align` parameter attribute
for `byval` parameters in LLVM must match the platform ABI, or miscompilations
will occur. Note that this doesn't use the approach suggested by eddyb, because
I felt it was overkill to store the alignment in `on_stack` when special
handling is really only needed for 32-bit x86.
As a side effect, this should fix#80127, because it will make the `align`
parameter attribute for `byval` parameters match the platform ABI on LLVM
x86-64.
[this comment]: #80822 (comment)
