rustc_target: ppc64 target string fixes for LLVM 20 by durin42 · Pull Request #134115 · rust-lang/rust

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

T-compiler

Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

labels

Dec 10, 2024

@rustbot rustbot added the llvm-main

Marks PRs that are making Rust work with LLVM main (this label is consumed by CI tooling)

label

Dec 10, 2024

jieyouxu

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

labels

Dec 10, 2024

@durin42

LLVM continues to clean these up, and we continue to make this
consistent. This is similar to 9caced7,
e985396, and
a10e744.

`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author

Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.

and removed S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

labels

Dec 10, 2024

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-author

Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.

labels

Dec 10, 2024

fmease added a commit to fmease/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 10, 2024
…youxu

rustc_target: ppc64 target string fixes for LLVM 20

LLVM continues to clean these up, and we continue to make this consistent. This is similar to 9caced7, e985396, and
a10e744.

``@rustbot`` label: +llvm-main

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 10, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 10, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 11, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 11, 2024

rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 11, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134115 - durin42:ppc64-target-string, r=jieyouxu

rustc_target: ppc64 target string fixes for LLVM 20

LLVM continues to clean these up, and we continue to make this consistent. This is similar to 9caced7, e985396, and
a10e744.

```@rustbot``` label: +llvm-main

@durin42 durin42 deleted the ppc64-target-string branch

December 11, 2024 09:34

tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 20, 2025
Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1].
However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that
mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment
  proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683,
  implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix.
  Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]:
  Rust's data layouts adjusted at
  rust-lang#132422,
  rust-lang#132741,
  rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20
  llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match
  GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At [3], the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from
`improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be
compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for
LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version
lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes
only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated
to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM
version.

Closes: rust-lang#134288
Closes: rust-lang#128950

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950
[3]: rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)

tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request

May 18, 2025
Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1].
However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that
mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment
  proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683,
  implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix.
  Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]:
  Rust's data layouts adjusted at
  rust-lang#132422,
  rust-lang#132741,
  rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20
  llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match
  GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At [3], the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from
`improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be
compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for
LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version
lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes
only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated
to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM
version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in [4], but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on
platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate.
We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can
be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not
provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it,
we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288
Closes: rust-lang#128950

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950
[3]: rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)
[4]: rust-lang#138282

tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request

May 29, 2025
Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1].
However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that
mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment
  proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683,
  implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix.
  Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]:
  Rust's data layouts adjusted at
  rust-lang#132422,
  rust-lang#132741,
  rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20
  llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match
  GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At [3], the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from
`improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be
compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for
LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version
lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes
only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated
to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM
version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in [4], but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on
platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate.
We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can
be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not
provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it,
we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288
Closes: rust-lang#128950

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950
[3]: rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)
[4]: rust-lang#138282

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request

Jun 4, 2025
…-ctypes, r=traviscross,workingjubilee

Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`

Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1]. However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683, implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix. Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]: Rust's data layouts adjusted at rust-lang#132422, rust-lang#132741, rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20 llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment), the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in rust-lang#138282, but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate. We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it, we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950

rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jun 4, 2025
Rollup merge of #137306 - tgross35:remove-i128-u128-improper-ctypes, r=traviscross,workingjubilee

Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`

Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1]. However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683, implemented at #116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix. Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]: Rust's data layouts adjusted at #132422, #132741, #134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20 llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match GCC and Clang at #134290.

At rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment), the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in #138282, but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate. We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it, we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: #134288

[1]: #54341
[2]: #128950

github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request

Jun 5, 2025
…r=traviscross,workingjubilee

Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`

Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1]. However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683, implemented at rust-lang/rust#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix. Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]: Rust's data layouts adjusted at rust-lang/rust#132422, rust-lang/rust#132741, rust-lang/rust#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20 llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match GCC and Clang at rust-lang/rust#134290.

At rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment), the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in rust-lang/rust#138282, but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate. We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it, we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang/rust#134288

[1]: rust-lang/rust#54341
[2]: rust-lang/rust#128950

kiseitai3 pushed a commit to kiseitai3/rust that referenced this pull request

Jun 6, 2025
Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1].
However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that
mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment
  proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683,
  implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix.
  Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]:
  Rust's data layouts adjusted at
  rust-lang#132422,
  rust-lang#132741,
  rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20
  llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match
  GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At [3], the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from
`improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be
compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for
LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version
lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes
only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated
to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM
version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in [4], but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on
platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate.
We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can
be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not
provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it,
we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288
Closes: rust-lang#128950

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950
[3]: rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)
[4]: rust-lang#138282

tautschnig pushed a commit to model-checking/verify-rust-std that referenced this pull request

Jun 17, 2025
Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1].
However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that
mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment
  proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683,
  implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix.
  Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]:
  Rust's data layouts adjusted at
  rust-lang#132422,
  rust-lang#132741,
  rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20
  llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match
  GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At [3], the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from
`improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be
compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for
LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version
lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes
only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated
to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM
version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in [4], but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on
platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate.
We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can
be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not
provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it,
we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288
Closes: rust-lang#128950

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950
[3]: rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)
[4]: rust-lang#138282

tautschnig pushed a commit to model-checking/verify-rust-std that referenced this pull request

Jun 17, 2025
…-ctypes, r=traviscross,workingjubilee

Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`

Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C [1]. However, there have been a number of changes in Rust and LLVM that mean this is no longer the case:

* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on x86 [1]: adjusting Rust's alignment proposed at rust-lang/compiler-team#683, implemented at rust-lang#116672.
* LLVM version of the above: resolved in LLVM, including ABI fix. Present in LLVM18 (our minimum supported version).
* Incorrect alignment of `i128` on 64-bit PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS [2]: Rust's data layouts adjusted at rust-lang#132422, rust-lang#132741, rust-lang#134115.
* LLVM version of the above: done in LLVM 20 llvm/llvm-project#102783.
* Incorrect return convention of `i128` on Windows: adjusted to match GCC and Clang at rust-lang#134290.

At rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment), the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM version.

`repr(i128)` was added to this lint in rust-lang#138282, but is also removed here.

Part of the decision is that `i128` should match `__int128` in C on platforms that provide it, which documentation is updated to indicate. We will not guarantee that `i128` matches `_BitInt(128)` since that can be different from `__int128`. Some platforms (usually 32-bit) do not provide `__int128`; if any ABIs are extended in the future to define it, we will need to make sure that our ABI matches.

Closes: rust-lang#134288

[1]: rust-lang#54341
[2]: rust-lang#128950