Pre-RFC: target-feature detection in libcore

AFAIK this is correct: we only ship read-only data as part of libcore.

Could you elaborate on which problems would this introduce ?

Consider that if libcore only ships read-only data (and code, of course) then, unless an application adds read/write global data (which embedded applications often don’t), the entire image can be put into ROM on the target device, and “execute in place” from that ROM. If libcore has a hard dependency on read-write data, it means that some code must now run before main and zero-initialize .bss and/or copy .data from a ROM section, whereas before this change, on certain targets, the Rust main can directly be the entry point, if the CPU initializes the stack pointer to a useful value on reset, e.g. like Cortex-M cores do.

(But what if the application does include global read/write data itself, wouldn’t that be unsafe? No, since a developer of such an application would set up a linker script such that it would statically reject any attempt to define a mutable static.)

I would personally consider this a breaking change, a regression, and a loss of feature parity with C in terms of deployability on embedded devices.

A possible solution I see that would satisfy everyone is an opt-in flag in target JSON that enables this runtime mechanism.

Run-time feature detection is only possible if libstd is somehow linked into the final binary. That is, the target must support libstd, which requires a relatively featureful operating system.

If the target doesn’t support libstd, then no target-feature detection can be done at run-time, so there is no need for libcore to store anything.

So I’m not quite sure how ROM-only targets come into play here. Are there ROM only targets with libstd support ? If so, libstd already uses read-write memory (e.g. the system being discussed here is already implemented in libstd), so how does libstd currently solve this problem there ?

Are you saying that libcore would include this read/write data only if libstd is also linked in? In that case forget what I said, because I misunderstood you and there is no issue.

Are you saying that libcore would include this read/write data only if libstd is also linked in?

Not exactly, more like, “if libstd could be linked”. For the targets you mention, if this is not possible, that would never happen. I suppose that we can control this via the target-specification file somehow like you proposed as well. Right now, this is all behind cfgs in libstd, so that only the targets that can benefit from it pay for it (also some targets have more features than others, so the caches need to be different as well).

FWIW with the “lang item”-approach, we could support @whitequark use case of doing runtime feature detection in read-only binaries. The only thing that must be available is a:

fn has_target_feature(feature: &'static str) -> bool;

lang item. When libstd provides this, it can implement it to contain a static cache inside. When a binary that needs to live in read-only memory implements it, it can either always return false (falling back to compile-time feature detection automatically), or actually perform runtime feature detection each time it is queried, without caching the results anywhere, and avoiding having a cache in read-write memory.

This also solves the issue with cdylibs, because each one has to provide this, and the cache would be initialized on first query.

This would also solve the issue for targets without atomics, where either thread local caches could be used, or a mutex, or a global variable if the application is single threaded, etc.

We don’t have to go straight there either. We could do what @alexcrichton proposed first, and move later on to a lang-item based system.

The current implementation is much closer to the lang-item approach, than to the approach where libstd would initialize a cache in libcore during binary initialization. But I don’t know how this weighs in.

1 Like

I remember there was a talk about supporting cargo features for std, so core and std could be the same library, just with “std” feature on or off. And the CPU detection could be a feature flag on its own.

The current RFC proposal seems stalled and lost in the weeds. There has been some recent progress on how to organize the discussion of how to plan for figuring out how to head in that direction. It may very well happn, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it being a practical solution to this problem in the near term.

.init and .fini, but please don’t do that in any automatic fashion. Doing that would lead to some major surprises when building an ELF object to run in an environment that won’t run those, or when running in an environment that can’t run the detection.

I’d suggest having a way to manually initialize the detection, along with an optional way to say “initialize me on load” that clearly documents the method and implications of doing so.


Thank you all for all the feedback so far. I’ve prepared an RFC that I believe satisfies all use-cases mentioned without any of the drawbacks that have been discussed here: .

Please let me know what you think: I’d like to iterate on this design a bit before submitting it as a proper RFC.

It would be particularly helpful to know if there are any use-cases that are missing. The main use case this RFC does not support is overriding the target-feature detection runtime provided by libstd. We could allow that in a forward-compatible way if we wanted to, but it would be better to motivate that with real use cases, and I personally don’t know of any.

The RFC describes what the whole implementation would look like, but note that we don’t have to stabilize it all at once. We could deliver most of the value by just stabilizing using the target-feature detection macros from libcore, keeping the rest of the API as “unstable”. The rest of the API allows users to provide their own detection run-time, which would allow these macros to do something meaningful in #![no_std] binaries, which is something that can be stabilized later.


This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.