On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:09:25AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 01:14:19PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > >> Otherwise partially reverting to the `target.json` approach sounds good too. > >> > >> I added the `-Zuse-sync-unwind=n` to the list at > >> https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2. Given the default is > >> what we want, I have put it in the "Good to have" section. > > > > I think we have time to do this properly, like we did for the clang > > enablement a few years ago. In hindsight, avoiding hacks for the early > > toolchains back then was a really good idea because it meant we could > > rely on a solid baseline set of compiler features from the start. > > > > So, please can we fix this in rustc and just have SCS dependent on that? > > Just to keep you in the loop, I've posted a PR to make rustc recognize > the reserve-x18 target feature, so that the -Ctarget-feature=+reserve-x18 > flag stops emitting a warning. > > This should be sufficient for adding support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS. > > You can find it here: > https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124323 > > As for non-dynamic SCS, I plan to tackle that after the PR is merged. > See the "Future possibilities" section in the linked PR for more info on > that. Thanks for persevering with this, Alice. I read the pull request above, but it looks like you went with: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124655 instead, which was merged (hurrah!). Do we need anything else? Will
