powerpc64-ibm-aix: fix cfg(target_abi) value - #162325
Open
RalfJung wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
r? @TaKO8Ki rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
RalfJung
commented
Sep 5, 2026
| // FIXME: using `cfg_abi` here is wrong -- that's not a source of truth, it's just | ||
| // what we display to the user. Instead we need to check the knob that controls | ||
| // whether the ABI is actually used. Currently there is no such knob, a Rust target | ||
| // can therefore never actually use `vec-extabi`. |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Our powerpc64-ibm-aix target currently sets
cfg_abito "vec-extabi", which means that programs compiled for this target think they use that ABI. Even our inline asm logic trusts this field. But that's a lie, we're actually using the default ABI since we are never settingEnableAIXExtendedAltivecABIon the LLVM side. We should fix that discrepancy.Between changing how we generate the code, and changing the label we put into
cfg_abi, the latter is the less risky change. So let's do that.This has been tried before in #153830. We then decided to wait a bit while the target maintainers investigate whether they want to change the ABI or not. I think we have waited long enough. The last comment from them that I found is this one which says "I'd conclude the extend vector ABI should be disabled for now"; there have been further questions but no further communication. We can always still change the ABI in the future, but for now let's fix the obvious bug where the ABI we report in
cfg_abidoes not match the actual ABI we are compiling for.Cc @Gelbpunkt @daltenty @gilamn5tr @amy-kwan @taiki-e