This deprecates `-Cinline-threshold` since using it has no effect. This
has been the case since the new LLVM pass manager started being used,
more than 2 years ago.
* The WASI targets deal with the `main` symbol a bit differently than
native so some `codegen` and `assembly` tests have been ignored.
* All `ignore-emscripten` directives have been updated to
`ignore-wasm32` to be more clear that all wasm targets are ignored and
it's not just Emscripten.
* Most `ignore-wasm32-bare` directives are now gone.
* Some ignore directives for wasm were switched to `needs-unwind`
instead.
* Many `ignore-wasm32*` directives are removed as the tests work with
WASI as opposed to `wasm32-unknown-unknown`.
This commit is extracted from #122036 and adds a new directive to the
`compiletest` test runner, `//@ needs-threads`. This is intended to
capture the need that a target must implement threading to execute a
specific test, typically one that uses `std::thread`. This is primarily
done for WebAssembly targets which currently do not have threads by
default. This enables transitioning a lot of `//@ ignore-wasm*`-style
ignores into a more self-documenting `//@ needs-threads` directive.
Additionally the `wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads` target, for example,
does actually have threads, but isn't tested in CI at this time. This
change enables running these tests for that target, but not other wasm
targets.
Fix duplicated path in the "not found dylib" error
While working on the gcc backend, I couldn't figure out why I had this error:
```
error: couldn't load codegen backend /checkout/compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc/target/release/librustc_codegen_gcc.so/checkout/compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc/target/release/librustc_codegen_gcc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
```
As you can see, the path is duplicated for some reason. After investigating a bit more, I realized that `libloading::Error::LoadLibraryExW` starts with the path of the not found dylib, making it appear twice in our error afterward (because we do render it like this: `{path}{err}`, and since the `err` starts with the path...).
Thanks to `````@bjorn3````` for linking me to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121392. :)
llvm: change data layout bug to an error and make it trigger more
Fixes#33446.
Don't skip the inconsistent data layout check for custom LLVMs or non-built-in targets.
With #118708, all targets will have a simple test that would trigger this error if LLVM's data layouts do change - so data layouts would be corrected during the LLVM upgrade. Therefore, with builtin targets, this error won't happen with our LLVM because each target will have been confirmed to work. With non-builtin targets, this error is probably useful to have because you can change the data layout in your target and if it is wrong then that could lead to bugs.
When using a custom LLVM, the same justification makes sense for non-builtin targets as with our LLVM, the user can update their target to match their LLVM and that's probably a good thing to do. However, with a custom LLVM, the user cannot change the builtin target data layouts if they don't match - though given that the compiler's data layout is used for layout computation and a bunch of other things - you could get some bugs because of the mismatch and probably want to know about that. I'm not sure if this is something that people do and is okay, but I doubt it?
`CFG_LLVM_ROOT` was also always set during local development with `download-ci-llvm` so this bug would never trigger locally.
In #33446, two points are raised:
- In the issue itself, changing this from a `bug!` to a proper error is what is suggested, by using `isCompatibleDataLayout` from LLVM, but that function still just does the same thing that we do and check for equality, so I've avoided the additional code necessary to do that FFI call.
- `@Mark-Simulacrum` suggests a different check is necessary to maintain backwards compatibility with old LLVM versions. I don't know how often this comes up, but we can do that with some simple string manipulation + LLVM version checks as happens already for LLVM 17 just above this diff.
Don't skip the inconsistent data layout check for custom LLVMs.
With #118708, all targets will have a simple test that would trigger this
check if LLVM's data layouts do change - so data layouts would be
corrected during the LLVM upgrade. Therefore, with builtin targets, this
check won't trigger with our LLVM because each target will have been
confirmed to work. With non-builtin targets, this check is probably
useful to have because you can change the data layout in your target and
if its wrong then that could lead to bugs.
When using a custom LLVM, the same justification makes sense for
non-builtin targets as with our LLVM, the user can update their target to
match their LLVM and that's probably a good thing to do. However, with
a custom LLVM, the user cannot change the builtin target data layouts if
they don't match - though given that the compiler's data layout is used
for layout computation and a bunch of other things - you could get some
bugs because of the mismatch and probably want to know about that.
`CFG_LLVM_ROOT` was also always set during local development with
`download-ci-llvm` so this bug would never trigger locally.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
