@@ -18,3 +18,74 @@ pub type uint16_t = u16;
18
18
pub type uint32_t = u32 ;
19
19
#[ deprecated( since = "0.2.55" , note = "Use u64 instead." ) ]
20
20
pub type uint64_t = u64 ;
21
+
22
+ cfg_if ! {
23
+ if #[ cfg( all( libc_int128, target_arch = "aarch64" , not( target_os = "windows" ) ) ) ] {
24
+ // This introduces partial support for FFI with __int128 and
25
+ // equivalent types on platforms where Rust's definition is validated
26
+ // to match the standard C ABI of that platform.
27
+ //
28
+ // Rust does not guarantee u128/i128 are sound for FFI, and its
29
+ // definitions are in fact known to be incompatible. [0]
30
+ //
31
+ // However these problems aren't fundamental, and are just platform
32
+ // inconsistencies. Specifically at the time of this writing:
33
+ //
34
+ // * For x64 SysV ABIs (everything but Windows), the types are underaligned.
35
+ // * For all Windows ABIs, Microsoft doesn't actually officially define __int128,
36
+ // and as a result different implementations don't actually agree on its ABI.
37
+ //
38
+ // But on the other major aarch64 platforms (android, linux, ios, macos) we have
39
+ // validated that rustc has the right ABI for these types. This is important because
40
+ // aarch64 uses these types in some fundamental OS types like user_fpsimd_struct,
41
+ // which represents saved simd registers.
42
+ //
43
+ // Any API which uses these types will need to `#[ignore(improper_ctypes)]`
44
+ // until the upstream rust issue is resolved, but this at least lets us make
45
+ // progress on platforms where this type is important.
46
+ //
47
+ // The supported architectures and OSes is intentionally very restricted,
48
+ // as careful work needs to be done to verify that a particular platform
49
+ // has a conformant ABI.
50
+ //
51
+ // [0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54341
52
+
53
+ /// C `__int128` (a GCC extension that's part of many ABIs)
54
+ pub type __int128 = i128 ;
55
+ /// C `unsigned __int128` (a GCC extension that's part of many ABIs)
56
+ pub type __uint128 = u128 ;
57
+ /// C __int128_t (alternate name for [__int128][])
58
+ pub type __int128_t = i128 ;
59
+ /// C __uint128_t (alternate name for [__uint128][])
60
+ pub type __uint128_t = u128 ;
61
+
62
+ // NOTE: if you add more platforms to here, you may need to cfg
63
+ // these consts. They should always match the platform's values
64
+ // for `sizeof(__int128)` and `_Alignof(__int128)`.
65
+ const _SIZE_128: usize = 16 ;
66
+ const _ALIGN_128: usize = 16 ;
67
+
68
+ /// Since Rust doesn't officially guarantee that these types
69
+ /// have compatible ABIs, we const assert that these values have the
70
+ /// known size/align of the target platform's libc. If rustc ever
71
+ /// tries to regress things, it will cause a compilation error.
72
+ ///
73
+ /// This isn't a bullet-proof solution because e.g. it doesn't
74
+ /// catch the fact that llvm and gcc disagree on how x64 __int128
75
+ /// is actually *passed* on the stack (clang underaligns it for
76
+ /// the same reason that rustc *never* properly aligns it).
77
+ const _ASSERT_128_COMPAT: ( ) = {
78
+ assert!( core:: mem:: size_of:: <__int128>( ) == _SIZE_128) ;
79
+ assert!( core:: mem:: align_of:: <__int128>( ) == _ALIGN_128) ;
80
+
81
+ assert!( core:: mem:: size_of:: <__uint128>( ) == _SIZE_128) ;
82
+ assert!( core:: mem:: align_of:: <__uint128>( ) == _ALIGN_128) ;
83
+
84
+ assert!( core:: mem:: size_of:: <__int128_t>( ) == _SIZE_128) ;
85
+ assert!( core:: mem:: align_of:: <__int128_t>( ) == _ALIGN_128) ;
86
+
87
+ assert!( core:: mem:: size_of:: <__uint128_t>( ) == _SIZE_128) ;
88
+ assert!( core:: mem:: align_of:: <__uint128_t>( ) == _ALIGN_128) ;
89
+ } ;
90
+ }
91
+ }
0 commit comments