-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
aarch64 is not whitelisted for ARM features #45310
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @pnkfelix (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
Hi @gnzlbg |
@parched yes but EDIT: maybe we could add a different |
@bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit 3bd9d62 has been approved by |
@parched I've introduced a new white-list in the last commit. |
@bors r=pnkfelix |
📌 Commit 6020f30 has been approved by |
@gnzlbg better but I think this should probably go through a mini RFC as specified by the target feature RFC. Notably my concern is that there is nothing named "NEON" in the Armv8/AArch64 architecture only "Advanced SIMD". Both GCC and Clang just call the feature |
@parched what? it is called
|
FWIW, the reference I've been following to implement NEON is ARM's NEON Intrinsics Reference which starts with:
So both "Advanced SIMD" and "NEON" seem to be fine, but @parched argument is very good: if only for consistency with clang and gcc we should probably choose "simd" as the feature name. @alexcrichton what do you think? I agree in that this should go through the RFC process, but I think that the right point for that is when we propose to stabilize the ARM SIMD intrinsics. There, we might choose "neon", "simd", or something else (who knows), and I wouldn't like to deprecate some name twice. Also, it is a shame that "neon" is already "stable" for "arm", and it is not my intent here to make it insta-stable for aarch64 as well (but AFAIK there isn't any way to do that). So my preference would be to: check this as "neon" right now for consistency with "arm". Finish the ARM intrinsics in the @parched what do you think of this approach? would you be ok with this? |
Thanks for the PR @gnzlbg! I think |
Yes, but the LLVM features aren't designed to be user facing names, they regularly change between releases, that's one of the reasons these whitelists were added in the first place I believe.
Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. |
I've filled an issue in the |
aarch64 is not whitelisted for ARM features This prevents the target feature `neon` from being enabled on aarch64.
@parched FWIW you were correct, we should call the Aarch64 feature |
This prevents the target feature
neon
from being enabled on aarch64.