rustc_target: ppc64 target string fixes for LLVM 20 by durin42 · Pull Request #134115 · rust-lang/rust
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
labels
Dec 10, 2024label
Dec 10, 2024
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
and removed S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.labels
Dec 10, 2024
bors
added
S-waiting-on-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
added
S-waiting-on-bors
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, 2024fmease added a commit to fmease/rust that referenced this pull request
Dec 10, 2024rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request
Dec 11, 2024Rollup 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
deleted the
ppc64-target-string
branch
tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request
Feb 20, 2025Rust'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, 2025Rust'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, 2025Rust'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, 2025Rollup 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, 2025Rust'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, 2025Rust'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
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters