Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

whitelist some ARM features #53926

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 3, 2018
Merged

whitelist some ARM features #53926

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 3, 2018

Conversation

japaric
Copy link
Member

@japaric japaric commented Sep 3, 2018

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2018

📌 Commit bac0eb2 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Sep 3, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2018

⌛ Testing commit bac0eb2 with merge 0f063ae...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2018
@@ -86,10 +86,14 @@ unsafe fn configure_llvm(sess: &Session) {
// array, leading to crashes.

const ARM_WHITELIST: &[(&str, Option<&str>)] = &[
("aclass", Some("arm_target_feature")),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As for mclass and rclass too, this should be renamed to a-profile before stabilisation. IMO it's better to do that now to avoid any unstable code using it to have to be changed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, before stabilization, neon on aarch64 should be renamed to asimd. @japaric it might be worth it to open an issue to track these on stdsimd, there might already be an issue open for the asimd rename task, so maybe this could be added to that one.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, how does stabilization work for target_features? #[cfg(target_feature = "mclass")] is not feature gated on stable but it doesn't work. AFAICT that feature gate will work in the next beta which comes out in a week unless there's some "this is a nightly only feature" logic that I didn't see.

Copy link
Contributor

@gnzlbg gnzlbg Sep 4, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, how does stabilization work for target_features?

In the RFC for the intrinsics, you write which target features they need, and that's pretty much it. We can stabilize them with the intrinsics.

AFAICT that feature gate will work in the next beta which comes out in a week unless there's some "this is a nightly only feature" logic that I didn't see.

Which feature gate? for example, the aclass above is gated on feature(arm_target_feature). Once arm_target_feature is stabilized, the aclass target feature will be usable on stable Rust.

Before stabilization we should split arm_target_feature features that we are not stabilizing into a new unstable feature.

src/librustc_codegen_llvm/llvm_util.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2018

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: alexcrichton
Pushing 0f063ae to master...

@bors bors merged commit bac0eb2 into rust-lang:master Sep 3, 2018
@japaric japaric deleted the arm-features branch September 4, 2018 12:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants