- Emitting `OpCapability` and `OpExtension` from assembly is no longer allowed (tbh it never was because we silently ignored them).
They now `fail` with a message pointing users at `-mcpu`.
- `tools/gen_spirv_spec.zig` now also emits `Extension` and the `Capability.dependencies()`.
Also To keep the feature set a reasonable size, the generator filters to an allowlist of `KHR` and `EXT` entries.
We can decide which vendors to allow later if a use-case is found.
- `tools/update_cpu_features.zig` now uses the generated `spec.zig` and emits a feature for every
capability and extension, with the capability's `.deps` populated from `Capability.dependencies()`.
- `Module.finalize`, `Module.entryPoints`, `Module.addCapability`, `Module.addExtension`
and `sections.capabilities`/`sections.extensions` are deleted.
- Linker now verifies that an `.spv` object declares the `Linkage` capability
Adds target info for the PSX. Builds fine with the following:
```zig
const target = b.resolveTargetQuery(.{
.os_tag = .psx,
.cpu_arch = .mipsel,
});
```
the only "problem" being that it spits out an error from LLVM even
though generating an object file succeeds:
```sh
❯ zig build
install
└─ install generated to main.o
└─ compile obj obj Debug mipsel-psx failure
error: warning: MIPS-I support is experimental
```
As with Solaris (dba1bf9353), we have no way to
actually audit contributions for these OSs. IBM also makes it even harder than
Oracle to actually obtain these OSs.
closes#23695closes#23694closes#3655closes#23693
* Remove the generic model; we already have generic_la32 and generic_la64 and
pick appropriately based on bitness.
* Remove the loongarch64 model. We used this as our baseline for 64-bit, but it's
actually pretty misleading and useless; it doesn't represent any real CPU and
has less features than generic_la64.
* Add la64v1_0 and la64v1_1 models.
* Change our baseline CPU model for 64-bit to be la64v1_0, thus adding LSX to
the baseline feature set.
added adapter to AnyWriter and GenericWriter to help bridge the gap
between old and new API
make std.testing.expectFmt work at compile-time
std.fmt no longer has a dependency on std.unicode. Formatted printing
was never properly unicode-aware. Now it no longer pretends to be.
Breakage/deprecations:
* std.fs.File.reader -> std.fs.File.deprecatedReader
* std.fs.File.writer -> std.fs.File.deprecatedWriter
* std.io.GenericReader -> std.io.Reader
* std.io.GenericWriter -> std.io.Writer
* std.io.AnyReader -> std.io.Reader
* std.io.AnyWriter -> std.io.Writer
* std.fmt.format -> std.fmt.deprecatedFormat
* std.fmt.fmtSliceEscapeLower -> std.ascii.hexEscape
* std.fmt.fmtSliceEscapeUpper -> std.ascii.hexEscape
* std.fmt.fmtSliceHexLower -> {x}
* std.fmt.fmtSliceHexUpper -> {X}
* std.fmt.fmtIntSizeDec -> {B}
* std.fmt.fmtIntSizeBin -> {Bi}
* std.fmt.fmtDuration -> {D}
* std.fmt.fmtDurationSigned -> {D}
* {} -> {f} when there is a format method
* format method signature
- anytype -> *std.io.Writer
- inferred error set -> error{WriteFailed}
- options -> (deleted)
* std.fmt.Formatted
- now takes context type explicitly
- no fmt string
Functions like isMinGW() and isGnuLibC() have a good reason to exist: They look
at multiple components of the target. But functions like isWasm(), isDarwin(),
isGnu(), etc only exist to save 4-8 characters. I don't think this is a good
enough reason to keep them, especially given that:
* It's not immediately obvious to a reader whether target.isDarwin() means the
same thing as target.os.tag.isDarwin() precisely because isMinGW() and similar
functions *do* look at multiple components.
* It's not clear where we would draw the line. The logical conclusion before
this commit would be to also wrap Arch.isX86(), Os.Tag.isSolarish(),
Abi.isOpenHarmony(), etc... this obviously quickly gets out of hand.
* It's nice to just have a single correct way of doing something.
This will mainly be used when targeting our wasm2c implementation which has no
problem with zero-length bulk memory operations, as a non-standard extension.
See: https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/pull/235
This is not *quite* using the same features as the spec'd lime1 model because
LLVM 19 doesn't have the level of feature granularity that we need for that.
This will be fixed once we upgrade to LLVM 20.
Part of #21818.
Ali Cheraghi