-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Split pauth
target feature
#93782
Merged
Merged
Split pauth
target feature
#93782
Conversation
This file contains 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
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
label
Feb 8, 2022
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Feb 8, 2022
Amanieu
reviewed
Feb 9, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM apart from a minor nit with the error message.
adamgemmell
force-pushed
the
dev/adagem01/split-pauth
branch
from
February 10, 2022 14:52
ac8e7c3
to
9885b54
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 9885b5457fc81ecb258393ef9ad53fc74cae14a6 has been approved by |
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
Feb 10, 2022
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
adamgemmell
force-pushed
the
dev/adagem01/split-pauth
branch
from
February 10, 2022 15:10
9885b54
to
d39a637
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit d39a637 has been approved by |
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2022
…h, r=Amanieu Split `pauth` target feature Per discussion on rust-lang#86941 we'd like to split `pauth` into `paca` and `pacg` in order to better support possible future environments that only have the keys available for address or generic authentication. At the moment LLVM has the one `pauth` target_feature while Linux presents separate `paca` and `pacg` flags for feature detection. Because the use of [target_feature](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2045-target-feature.html) will "allow the compiler to generate code under the assumption that this code will only be reached in hosts that support the feature", it does not make sense to simply translate `paca` into the LLVM feature `pauth`, as it will generate code as if `pacg` is available. To accommodate this we error if only one of the two features is present. If LLVM splits them in the future we can remove this restriction without making a breaking change. r? `@Amanieu`
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2022
…h, r=Amanieu Split `pauth` target feature Per discussion on rust-lang#86941 we'd like to split `pauth` into `paca` and `pacg` in order to better support possible future environments that only have the keys available for address or generic authentication. At the moment LLVM has the one `pauth` target_feature while Linux presents separate `paca` and `pacg` flags for feature detection. Because the use of [target_feature](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2045-target-feature.html) will "allow the compiler to generate code under the assumption that this code will only be reached in hosts that support the feature", it does not make sense to simply translate `paca` into the LLVM feature `pauth`, as it will generate code as if `pacg` is available. To accommodate this we error if only one of the two features is present. If LLVM splits them in the future we can remove this restriction without making a breaking change. r? ``@Amanieu``
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2022
…askrgr Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#90955 (Rename `FilenameTooLong` to `InvalidFilename` and also use it for Windows' `ERROR_INVALID_NAME`) - rust-lang#91607 (Make `span_extend_to_prev_str()` more robust) - rust-lang#92895 (Remove some unused functionality) - rust-lang#93635 (Add missing platform-specific information on current_dir and set_current_dir) - rust-lang#93660 (rustdoc-json: Add some tests for typealias item) - rust-lang#93782 (Split `pauth` target feature) - rust-lang#93868 (Fix incorrect register conflict detection in asm!) - rust-lang#93888 (Implement `AsFd` for `&T` and `&mut T`.) - rust-lang#93909 (Fix typo: explicitely -> explicitly) - rust-lang#93910 (fix mention of moved function in `rustc_hir` docs) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Per discussion on #86941 we'd like to split
pauth
intopaca
andpacg
in order to better support possible future environments that only have the keys available for address or generic authentication. At the moment LLVM has the onepauth
target_feature while Linux presents separatepaca
andpacg
flags for feature detection.Because the use of target_feature will "allow the compiler to generate code under the assumption that this code will only be reached in hosts that support the feature", it does not make sense to simply translate
paca
into the LLVM featurepauth
, as it will generate code as ifpacg
is available.To accommodate this we error if only one of the two features is present. If LLVM splits them in the future we can remove this restriction without making a breaking change.
r? @Amanieu