Flexible target specification

[emberian]

Rendered

[mcpherrinm]

I assume all linked libraries in an executable should be compiled with the same -T settings. Would this be included in the crate metadata or something so the compiler can enforce it?

[emberian]

I see no immediate reason why that should be enforced. I imagine any incompatibility would be caught by the linker. Do you have any example where you could cause very bad breakage with this, inside of a single --target, that you can't do today with -C?

[bharrisau]

Half of the -T flags are already in -C. Is there is benefit to adding the -T?

The two consumers of the target triple are LLVM and Rust, it looks like the target specification is for LLVM and the targ_os provides an override for Rust?

[emberian]

-T sets defaults for the target. I really would prefer if we just loaded <target>.json from someplace.

[emberian]

(In that, usually you don't use -T, but you might reasonably use -C)

[mcpherrinm]

I think it is likely to be a mistake to combine conflicting -T flags, and you may accidentally link against the wrong compiled artifacts, eg those with split stacks enabled. Messing around with the LLVM datalayout could also lead to badness.

[alexcrichton]

The level of customizability here is definitely nice, and it seems like it could go pretty far. I'm worried about the power it gives you, however, because you all of a sudden can put yourself in some really weird situations.

Primarily, as @mcpherrinm noted, you can mix and match crates of all sorts of configuration, which can lead to perfectly safe code actually becoming unsafe in some circumstances (for example, stack overflow).

I share concerns with @bharrisau as well in that one of rustc's goals was to minimize the gargantuan command lines of C/C++. This seems to be expanding the command line for these project when they would be otherwise summarized in --target=foo.

It appears that "adding a new triple" is a real problem in the compiler due to the necessary support required. I wonder if the first stab at achieving the original goal would be to lower this bar of entry for new triples as much as possible. I imagine there are many things we could do to accept new triples.

I also think that focusing on target triples is itself quite powerful. We can easily have a target directory for all those crates, we can ensure that everything is compiled the same way, and you basically have a succinct alias for a form of configuration.

All in all, this is a very real problem, but I'm not sure if we want to resort to total customizability just yet?

[emberian]

I really like the idea of the compiler just loading a <target>.json file to get a target config, but I don't like the idea of the compiler relying on external configuration out of the box, and not being able to pass flags to the compiler and having to put them in a file is a huge pet peeve of mine.

[emberian]

I think anything less than a comprehensive target specification interface to the compiler (in some form) is going to be too limiting, and that we'll just end up with one anyway, but I'm not too enthralled with the precise interface here. In particular, -T feels bad. As to my concerns about requiring a file, maybe this is so rare that it doesn't matter.

[mcpherrinm]

Perhaps all target triples should be defined in a configuration file, say $PREFIX/local/rustc/triples.json that's distributed with the compiler, and new triples can be easily added to rustc by adding a new entry there, or to a local version, say in /etc/rustc/triples.json that overrides the default one.

[emberian]

Well, I do want a way to specify a target config to use, for per-project stuff, but that I can see --target=path/to/target.json being repurposed for that. And thinking about it further, this is no more evil than a linker script, and probably just as common.

[bharrisau]

I do like the idea of moving some of the target specific stuff out of rustc. Data-layout is compiled in, and there is some magic that goes on to convert the specified target into the rust arch and rust os. Having the target spec in a distributed json (plus a method for a customised json) would make it easier to add new targets.

Does this RFC also want to include a --metal-triple configure argument or similar so libcore (plus others) can be built using the build tools?

[emberian]

I don't think changes to configure are RFC-worthy.

[bharrisau]

@alexcrichton the biggest barrier to new triples is support for a default/undefined/unknown/metal OS in libstd (et al.).

[emberian]

So for cfg'd off items in std etc I think what this describes (setting a targ_os) is fine. If std doesn't provide an implementation for your specific target, it's far easier to do that than change the compiler.

[bharrisau]

Looking at what I had to change to add an unknown OS in rust-lang/rust#12841:

• Add data-layout to arm/mips/x86/x86_64
• Add info to link.rs to work out DLL name
• Update rpath.rs for dynamic linking on unknown OS
• Update driver.rs so it turns *-unkown-* into unknown OS enum and the reverse for LLVM target
• Update libstd::os to have naming consts for unknown OS
• Update abi.rs to add Unknown to OS enum

This means that rustc supports a subset of the platforms that LLVM does.

I'm in favour of moving as much of this as possible out of rustc and just having relevant flags (dylib, segmented-stack, targ_arch name, targ_os name) set by a target descriptor. Some targets will have the descriptors bundled with rust (e.g. --target x86-linux-gnu uses the bundled x86-linux-gnu.json), and maybe a -C target-descriptor=xxx.json for custom targets?

Then I can set up a nvptx-cuda-unknown.json to support building for GPUs (or something like that).

Agree we need to be careful with hygiene between crates defined with different targets or descriptors. I've encountered a couple of ICE when mismatching crates.

[Ericson2314]

I am getting the overall impression that this is adding another layer of abstraction to solve the exact problem target triples were supposed to solve. I am also nervous about the potential confusing of allowing triples not used by autotools / llvm / whoever came up with them in the first place.

Those more philosophical concerns aside, --target=<triple | path/to/config.json> does seem practical.

[emberian]

Target triples are a good solution to a different problem. They allow you to precisely specify which environment a program is expected to run in. Unfortunately, they allow you to precisely specify which environment a program is expected to run in, not anything about that platform. You need to add a new triple to port something to a new platform. LLVM recognizes certain triples but basically only for the purposes of selecting which codegen backend to run, beyond that it doesn't care (not really, at least). The point original RFC made still stands, most projects will likely have to use x86_64-unknown-unknown or whichever, since anything else won't be accepted (or just fall back to unknown), but we need a way to specify certain things, both for rustc and to llvm, most importantly datalayout, segmented stack prologue support, and linker/linker arguments.

There is no canonical source of target triples. We can accept whatever we want as long as we hand LLVM something it can use. And I see no reason that we shouldn't.

[Ericson2314]

In hindsight I feel a bit foolish. If all current + custom triples can be specified with the JSON file, then of course there is no overlap.

[emberian]

Revised the RFC. A target configuration will only be loaded from a file. However, the builtin targets that rustc understands are still included in the compiler rather than in a separate file.

[bharrisau]

:set spell

[zwarich]

@cmr LLVM will use the other components of target triples to make ABI decisions or decide to avoid certain features based on the supported feature set of the platform toolchain.

[errordeveloper]

This is pretty nifty! I tried adding arm-none-eabi and it was pretty tedious, and I'm yet unsure if it will work!

[bharrisau]

Is this just pending agreement on the config file format? I saw it discussed last week, but it isn't scheduled again this week.

[emberian]

No, I've been ultra busy and haven't had time to either discuss this with
the others nor implement it.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Ben Harris [email protected]
wrote:

Is this just pending agreement on the config file format? I saw it
discussed last week, but it isn't scheduled again this week.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#131 (comment).

http://octayn.net/

[errordeveloper]

Would it help if we propose something as a starting point?

[bharrisau]

Unlikely (wasn't my intention to trigger a bike-shedding cascade). Sounds like @cmr just hasn't had enough time to formalise the final details with the team: format (e.g. JSON - which we don't have an in-tree parser for), handling crate conflicts, and making sure everyone is comfortable specifying the LLVM target explicitly (and orthogonally to the rust target-arch and target-os).

[errordeveloper]

I understand that ideally JSON would be the best fit, however things can be simplified a little with CSV or even, may be, including a target.rs file that would either have a macro or just a struct defining the target, if providing JSON parser looks like a big leap...

[emberian]

We already have JSON support as part of libserialize.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ilya Dmitrichenko <[email protected]

wrote:

I understand that ideally JSON would be the best fit, however things can
be simplified a little with CSV or even, may be, including a target.rs
file that would either have a macro or just a struct defining the target,
if providing JSON parser looks like a big leap...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#131 (comment).

http://octayn.net/

[errordeveloper]

@cmr I though @bharrisau meant that the JSON parser is not available for the compiler...

...JSON - which we don't have an in-tree parser for

[emberian]

It is.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Ilya Dmitrichenko <[email protected]

wrote:

@cmr https://github.com/cmr I though @bharrisau
https://github.com/bharrisau meant that the JSON parser is not
available for the compiler...

...JSON - which we don't have an in-tree parser for

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#131 (comment).

http://octayn.net/

[bharrisau]

Yeah sorry, brain fart. Rustc outputs the ast as json, don't know what I
was thinking.

[brson]

Accepted as RFC 42. Meeting discussion: https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/weekly-meetings/2014-07-29.md

[mneumann]

As with RFC #185, a first step could be in centralizing target specific code to a single file. For porting Rust to DragonFly I had to make changes to the following files:

src/librustc/back/link.rs
src/librustc/driver/config.rs
src/librustc/metadata/loader.rs
src/librustc_back/arm.rs
src/librustc_back/mips.rs
src/librustc_back/mipsel.rs
src/librustc_back/x86.rs
src/librustc_back/rpath.rs
src/librustc_back/x86_64.rs
src/libsyntax/abi.rs

If we put all of this into a librustc_target crate it would simpliy porting a lot. We would then have a trait TargetSpec and for each supported target (e.g. TargetLinux, TargetFreeBSD) we'd provide an implementation for. And there would be a TargetGeneric which would pump the relevant values into rustc from command-line options or a JSON file. This all seems to be pretty straight-forward, but maybe I am missing something :).

[brson]

Tracking bug is here rust-lang/rust#16093