test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program #144379
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors2 try |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
…bis, r=<try> test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program try-job: `x86_64-*`
|
💔 Test failed (CI). Failed job:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@bors2 try |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
…bis, r=<try> test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program try-job: `x86_64-gnu` try-job: `x86_64-msvc-*`
|
Ah, that's a fun way of testing this. Could you add the C source code for that assembly in the test file, so we have it checked in to git? |
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
c-variadic-same-program-multiple-abis
branch
from
596d8e8 to
aea74c4
Compare
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 24, 2025
RalfJung
reviewed
Jul 24, 2025
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
c-variadic-same-program-multiple-abis
branch
from
aea74c4 to
963cd8a
Compare
|
I know nothing about these ABIs or issues with it, @workingjubilee do you want to take this one? |
|
I was about to approve -- I don't know how the ABIs are implemented, but the way this is being tested looks sound to me. |
|
Ah cool, that wfm |
|
Let's land this then, we can always adjust later if @workingjubilee has more comments. It's just a test after all. @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2025
…-multiple-abis, r=RalfJung test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program tracking issue: rust-lang#100189 Check that multiple c-variadic calling conventions can be used in the same program. Clang and gcc reject defining functions with a non-default calling convention and a variable argument list, so C programs that use multiple c-variadic calling conventions are unlikely to come up. Here we validate that our codegen backends do in fact generate correct code. (CI will not run this test because it runs on aarch64, I would like to at least test that this runs on windows) try-job: `x86_64-gnu` try-job: `x86_64-msvc-*`
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2025
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #144316 (bootstrap: Move musl-root fallback out of sanity check) - #144352 (RustWrapper: Suppress getNextNonDebugInfoInstruction) - #144356 (Add `ignore-backends` annotations in failing GCC backend ui tests) - #144359 (add codegen test for variadics) - #144376 (Suggest unwrapping when private method name is available in inner type) - #144379 (test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program) - #144383 (disable cfg.has_reliable_f128 on amdgcn) - #144412 (Small cleanup: Use LocalKey<Cell> methods more) - #144421 (Call `is_parsed_attribute` rather than keeping track of a list of parsed attributes manually) - #144422 (library/windows_targets: Fix macro expansion error in 'link' macro) - #144424 (Allow setting `release-blog-post` label with rustbot) - #144430 (tests: aarch64-outline-atomics: Remove hardcoded target) - #144435 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - #144445 (Fix `./x check bootstrap` (again)) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
Failed in rollup: #144466 (comment) @bors r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
c-variadic-same-program-multiple-abis
branch
from
963cd8a to
69ebf70
Compare
|
Of course it's macos symbol mangling Usually the way to resolve this sort of problem is to use a naked function, but those can't yet use @bors2 try |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
…bis, r=<try> test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program try-job: `x86_64-gnu` try-job: `x86_64-msvc-*` try-job: `x86_64-apple-2`
|
@bors r=RalfJung |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
…-multiple-abis, r=RalfJung test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program tracking issue: rust-lang#100189 Check that multiple c-variadic calling conventions can be used in the same program. Clang and gcc reject defining functions with a non-default calling convention and a variable argument list, so C programs that use multiple c-variadic calling conventions are unlikely to come up. Here we validate that our codegen backends do in fact generate correct code. (CI will not run this test because it runs on aarch64, I would like to at least test that this runs on windows) try-job: `x86_64-gnu` try-job: `x86_64-msvc-*` try-job: `x86_64-apple-2`
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2025
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #144359 (add codegen test for variadics) - #144379 (test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program) - #144383 (disable cfg.has_reliable_f128 on amdgcn) - #144409 (Stop compilation early if macro expansion failed) - #144422 (library/windows_targets: Fix macro expansion error in 'link' macro) - #144429 (Enable outline-atomics for aarch64-unknown-linux-musl) - #144430 (tests: aarch64-outline-atomics: Remove hardcoded target) - #144445 (Fix `./x check bootstrap` (again)) - #144453 (canonicalize build root in `tests/run-make/linker-warning`) - #144464 (Only run bootstrap tests in `x test` on CI) - #144470 (clif: Don't set the `compiler-builtins-no-f16-f128` feature) - #144480 (Revert "coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen") - #144495 (bump cargo_metadata) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2025
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #141840 (If `HOME` is empty, use the fallback instead) - #144359 (add codegen test for variadics) - #144379 (test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program) - #144383 (disable cfg.has_reliable_f128 on amdgcn) - #144409 (Stop compilation early if macro expansion failed) - #144422 (library/windows_targets: Fix macro expansion error in 'link' macro) - #144429 (Enable outline-atomics for aarch64-unknown-linux-musl) - #144430 (tests: aarch64-outline-atomics: Remove hardcoded target) - #144445 (Fix `./x check bootstrap` (again)) - #144453 (canonicalize build root in `tests/run-make/linker-warning`) - #144464 (Only run bootstrap tests in `x test` on CI) - #144470 (clif: Don't set the `compiler-builtins-no-f16-f128` feature) - #144480 (Revert "coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen") r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2025
Rollup merge of #144379 - folkertdev:c-variadic-same-program-multiple-abis, r=RalfJung test using multiple c-variadic ABIs in the same program tracking issue: #100189 Check that multiple c-variadic calling conventions can be used in the same program. Clang and gcc reject defining functions with a non-default calling convention and a variable argument list, so C programs that use multiple c-variadic calling conventions are unlikely to come up. Here we validate that our codegen backends do in fact generate correct code. (CI will not run this test because it runs on aarch64, I would like to at least test that this runs on windows) try-job: `x86_64-gnu` try-job: `x86_64-msvc-*` try-job: `x86_64-apple-2`
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
…-multiple-abis-arm, r=RalfJung,davidtwco c-variadic: multiple ABIs in the same program for arm similar to rust-lang#144379, but for arm, requested in rust-lang#144066. Quoting rust-lang/reference#1946 (comment) > `"aapcs"` specifically refers to the soft-float ABI where floating-point values are passed in integer registers. However for c-variadic functions, `aapcs` behaves the same as `C`: https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#65parameter-passing > A variadic function is always marshaled as for the base standard. https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#7the-standard-variants > This section applies only to non-variadic functions. For a variadic function the base standard is always used both for argument passing and result return. --- I also noticed that rustc currently emit more instructions than clang for c-variadic functions on arm, see https://godbolt.org/z/hMce9rnTh. I'll fix that separately. (edit: rust-lang#144549) try-job: armhf-gnu r? `@RalfJung`
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
Rollup merge of #144541 - folkertdev:c-variadic-same-program-multiple-abis-arm, r=RalfJung,davidtwco c-variadic: multiple ABIs in the same program for arm similar to #144379, but for arm, requested in #144066. Quoting rust-lang/reference#1946 (comment) > `"aapcs"` specifically refers to the soft-float ABI where floating-point values are passed in integer registers. However for c-variadic functions, `aapcs` behaves the same as `C`: https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#65parameter-passing > A variadic function is always marshaled as for the base standard. https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#7the-standard-variants > This section applies only to non-variadic functions. For a variadic function the base standard is always used both for argument passing and result return. --- I also noticed that rustc currently emit more instructions than clang for c-variadic functions on arm, see https://godbolt.org/z/hMce9rnTh. I'll fix that separately. (edit: #144549) try-job: armhf-gnu r? `@RalfJung`
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
…-abis-arm, r=RalfJung,davidtwco c-variadic: multiple ABIs in the same program for arm similar to rust-lang/rust#144379, but for arm, requested in rust-lang/rust#144066. Quoting rust-lang/reference#1946 (comment) > `"aapcs"` specifically refers to the soft-float ABI where floating-point values are passed in integer registers. However for c-variadic functions, `aapcs` behaves the same as `C`: https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#65parameter-passing > A variadic function is always marshaled as for the base standard. https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs32/aapcs32.rst#7the-standard-variants > This section applies only to non-variadic functions. For a variadic function the base standard is always used both for argument passing and result return. --- I also noticed that rustc currently emit more instructions than clang for c-variadic functions on arm, see https://godbolt.org/z/hMce9rnTh. I'll fix that separately. (edit: rust-lang/rust#144549) try-job: armhf-gnu r? `@RalfJung`
fmease
added a commit
to fmease/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 1, 2025
…kingjubilee stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to rust-lang#145954. **Previous (combined) PR description:** This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates. The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](rust-lang#136946 (comment)) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR): - "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions** - "C" for everything else This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in rust-lang#116161, which got reverted in rust-lang#136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](rust-lang#119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang#116161. There was a question raised [here](rust-lang#116161 (comment)) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me. Fixes rust-lang#100189 Cc `@rust-lang/lang` # Stabilization report > ## General design > ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are - rust-lang#100189 - rust-lang#136946 > ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics. - Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. microsoft/windows-rs#3626. - Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](rust-lang#136946 (comment)). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those. Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do ```rust extern "system" { // put all the things here } ``` and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there). (I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.) > ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](rust-lang#44930). > ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? > > Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results". There was no call for testing. A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics. > ## Implementation quality All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here... > ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) > > An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>. The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9c870d30e2d6434c9e9a004b450c5ccffdf3d844/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs#L109-L126). The special handling of "system" is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c24914ec8329b22ec7bcaa6ab534a784b2bd8ab9/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs#L82-L85). > ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature > > Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing. > > Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time. > > - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like? > - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes? > - Tests for the feature itself: > - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation) > - Exercises of edge cases of the feature > - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`). > - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage? > > Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.). Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64: - rust-lang#144359 - rust-lang#144379 We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.) The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`. > ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? None that I am aware of. > ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None that I am aware of. > ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization `@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature. > ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? > > Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs. Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here. > ## Type system and execution rules > ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior? > > (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale? Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) - rust-lang/reference#1936 > ## Common interactions > ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries? No. > ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? None.
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2025
…kingjubilee stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to rust-lang#145954. **Previous (combined) PR description:** This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates. The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](rust-lang#136946 (comment)) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR): - "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions** - "C" for everything else This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in rust-lang#116161, which got reverted in rust-lang#136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](rust-lang#119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang#116161. There was a question raised [here](rust-lang#116161 (comment)) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me. Fixes rust-lang#100189 Cc `@rust-lang/lang` # Stabilization report > ## General design > ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are - rust-lang#100189 - rust-lang#136946 > ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics. - Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. microsoft/windows-rs#3626. - Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](rust-lang#136946 (comment)). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those. Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do ```rust extern "system" { // put all the things here } ``` and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there). (I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.) > ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](rust-lang#44930). > ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? > > Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results". There was no call for testing. A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics. > ## Implementation quality All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here... > ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) > > An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>. The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9c870d30e2d6434c9e9a004b450c5ccffdf3d844/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs#L109-L126). The special handling of "system" is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c24914ec8329b22ec7bcaa6ab534a784b2bd8ab9/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs#L82-L85). > ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature > > Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing. > > Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time. > > - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like? > - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes? > - Tests for the feature itself: > - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation) > - Exercises of edge cases of the feature > - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`). > - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage? > > Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.). Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64: - rust-lang#144359 - rust-lang#144379 We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.) The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`. > ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? None that I am aware of. > ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None that I am aware of. > ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization `@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature. > ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? > > Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs. Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here. > ## Type system and execution rules > ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior? > > (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale? Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) - rust-lang/reference#1936 > ## Common interactions > ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries? No. > ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? None.
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2025
Rollup merge of #144066 - RalfJung:extern-c-variadics, r=workingjubilee stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to #145954. **Previous (combined) PR description:** This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates. The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](#136946 (comment)) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR): - "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions** - "C" for everything else This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in #116161, which got reverted in #136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](#119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of #116161. There was a question raised [here](#116161 (comment)) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me. Fixes #100189 Cc `@rust-lang/lang` # Stabilization report > ## General design > ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are - #100189 - #136946 > ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics. - Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. microsoft/windows-rs#3626. - Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](#136946 (comment)). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those. Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do ```rust extern "system" { // put all the things here } ``` and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there). (I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.) > ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](#44930). > ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? > > Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results". There was no call for testing. A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics. > ## Implementation quality All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here... > ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) > > An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>. The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9c870d30e2d6434c9e9a004b450c5ccffdf3d844/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs#L109-L126). The special handling of "system" is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c24914ec8329b22ec7bcaa6ab534a784b2bd8ab9/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs#L82-L85). > ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature > > Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing. > > Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time. > > - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like? > - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes? > - Tests for the feature itself: > - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation) > - Exercises of edge cases of the feature > - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`). > - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage? > > Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.). Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64: - #144359 - #144379 We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.) The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`. > ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? None that I am aware of. > ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None that I am aware of. > ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization `@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature. > ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? > > Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs. Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here. > ## Type system and execution rules > ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior? > > (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale? Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) - rust-lang/reference#1936 > ## Common interactions > ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries? No. > ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? None.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to rust-lang/rust#145954. **Previous (combined) PR description:** This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates. The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](rust-lang/rust#136946 (comment)) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR): - "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions** - "C" for everything else This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in rust-lang/rust#116161, which got reverted in rust-lang/rust#136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](rust-lang/rust#119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang/rust#116161. There was a question raised [here](rust-lang/rust#116161 (comment)) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me. Fixes rust-lang/rust#100189 Cc `@rust-lang/lang` # Stabilization report > ## General design > ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are - rust-lang/rust#100189 - rust-lang/rust#136946 > ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics. - Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. microsoft/windows-rs#3626. - Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](rust-lang/rust#136946 (comment)). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those. Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do ```rust extern "system" { // put all the things here } ``` and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there). (I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.) > ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](rust-lang/rust#44930). > ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? > > Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results". There was no call for testing. A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics. > ## Implementation quality All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here... > ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) > > An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>. The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9c870d30e2d6434c9e9a004b450c5ccffdf3d844/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs#L109-L126). The special handling of "system" is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c24914ec8329b22ec7bcaa6ab534a784b2bd8ab9/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs#L82-L85). > ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature > > Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing. > > Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time. > > - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like? > - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes? > - Tests for the feature itself: > - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation) > - Exercises of edge cases of the feature > - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`). > - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage? > > Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.). Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64: - rust-lang/rust#144359 - rust-lang/rust#144379 We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.) The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`. > ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? None that I am aware of. > ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None that I am aware of. > ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization `@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature. > ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? > > Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs. Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here. > ## Type system and execution rules > ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior? > > (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale? Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.) Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs. > ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) - rust-lang/reference#1936 > ## Common interactions > ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries? No. > ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? None.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
tracking issue: #100189
Check that multiple c-variadic calling conventions can be used in the same program.
Clang and gcc reject defining functions with a non-default calling convention and a variable
argument list, so C programs that use multiple c-variadic calling conventions are unlikely
to come up. Here we validate that our codegen backends do in fact generate correct code.
(CI will not run this test because it runs on aarch64, I would like to at least test that this runs on windows)
try-job:
x86_64-gnutry-job:
x86_64-msvc-*try-job:
x86_64-apple-2