-
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
Stabilise is_aarch64_feature_detected!
under simd_aarch64
feature
#90271
Conversation
CI should fail until the stdarch PR is committed and updated here |
We can have different |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #92587) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
5fdd506
to
d9e776b
Compare
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ | |||
all(target_arch = "aarch64", any(target_os = "linux", target_os = "android")), | |||
all(target_arch = "powerpc", target_os = "linux"), | |||
all(target_arch = "powerpc64", target_os = "linux"), | |||
any(target_arch = "x86", target_arch = "x86_64"), |
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.
Should this be removed for aarch64 as well? You might need to put this behind cfg(bootstrap)
so the stage0 compiler still accepts it.
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.
True - I mistakenly removed it when making pauth
temporarily unstable again.
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.
Actually, it does need to remain there while pauth is unstable. I'll fix it up when rust-lang/stdarch#1259 is merged, and update the submodule at the same time.
d9e776b
to
93b5bfb
Compare
@bors r+ rollup=never |
📌 Commit 93b5bfb has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (e789f3a): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Just a heads up, the stabilization machinery may cause confusion here. The docs say this is still unstable: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/arch/macro.is_aarch64_feature_detected.html This is because the https://doc.rust-lang.org/ docs are built for x86_64. For some reason, using the macro from an incompatible target raises an unstable error. For example, using is_aarch64_feature_detected on x86_64 will display:
Is that intentional? |
Fix documentation for is_X_feature_detected! These are now properly documented for all architectures and the stability attributes in the docs are now correctly displayed. This addresses this comment by `@ehuss:` rust-lang#90271 (comment) cc `@adamgemmell`
Fix documentation for is_X_feature_detected! These are now properly documented for all architectures and the stability attributes in the docs are now correctly displayed. This addresses this comment by `@ehuss:` rust-lang#90271 (comment) cc `@adamgemmell`
Initial implementation, looking for feedback on the approach here. #86941
One point I noticed was that I haven't seen different "since" versions for the same feature - does this mean that other features can't be added to to the
simd_aarch64
feature once this is in stable? If so it might need a more specific name.r? @Amanieu