summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch')
-rw-r--r--meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch58
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..cb99e8b011
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/hardcodepaths.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+When building for the target, some build paths end up embedded in the binaries.
+These changes remove that. Further investigation is needed to work out the way
+to resolve these issues properly upstream.
+
+Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [patches need rework]
+Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+Index: rustc-1.66.0-src/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/context.rs
+===================================================================
+--- rustc-1.66.0-src.orig/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/context.rs
++++ rustc-1.66.0-src/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/context.rs
+@@ -160,46 +160,6 @@ pub unsafe fn create_module<'ll>(
+ }
+ }
+
+- // Ensure the data-layout values hardcoded remain the defaults.
+- if sess.target.is_builtin {
+- let tm = crate::back::write::create_informational_target_machine(tcx.sess);
+- llvm::LLVMRustSetDataLayoutFromTargetMachine(llmod, tm);
+- llvm::LLVMRustDisposeTargetMachine(tm);
+-
+- let llvm_data_layout = llvm::LLVMGetDataLayoutStr(llmod);
+- let llvm_data_layout = str::from_utf8(CStr::from_ptr(llvm_data_layout).to_bytes())
+- .expect("got a non-UTF8 data-layout from LLVM");
+-
+- // Unfortunately LLVM target specs change over time, and right now we
+- // don't have proper support to work with any more than one
+- // `data_layout` than the one that is in the rust-lang/rust repo. If
+- // this compiler is configured against a custom LLVM, we may have a
+- // differing data layout, even though we should update our own to use
+- // that one.
+- //
+- // As an interim hack, if CFG_LLVM_ROOT is not an empty string then we
+- // disable this check entirely as we may be configured with something
+- // that has a different target layout.
+- //
+- // Unsure if this will actually cause breakage when rustc is configured
+- // as such.
+- //
+- // FIXME(#34960)
+- let cfg_llvm_root = option_env!("CFG_LLVM_ROOT").unwrap_or("");
+- let custom_llvm_used = cfg_llvm_root.trim() != "";
+-
+- if !custom_llvm_used && target_data_layout != llvm_data_layout {
+- bug!(
+- "data-layout for target `{rustc_target}`, `{rustc_layout}`, \
+- differs from LLVM target's `{llvm_target}` default layout, `{llvm_layout}`",
+- rustc_target = sess.opts.target_triple,
+- rustc_layout = target_data_layout,
+- llvm_target = sess.target.llvm_target,
+- llvm_layout = llvm_data_layout
+- );
+- }
+- }
+-
+ let data_layout = SmallCStr::new(&target_data_layout);
+ llvm::LLVMSetDataLayout(llmod, data_layout.as_ptr());
+