Support for the ESP-IDF framework (Xtensa and RiscV arch) #2310
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Amanieu (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
This is not OK. Note that rwlocks can be implemented using mutexes and condition variables, so perhaps ESP-IDF could add pthread_rwlock support in the future. In the meantime, The rest of the changes look fine. |
Indeed. That's what I was doing inside the libStd patch itself, by re-using and modifying a variant of this implementation. However it resulted in way too may changes all over the place (related to const fn and static rwlocks), so the cleanest approach is to just have native phtread_rwlock support - somehow. Out of pure curiosity: are there any observable differences between rwlock and a mutex (that is, putting performance concerns with many readers aside, as that won't be the case on this tiny MCU which can only spin a handful of threads anyway)? Condvars in rust seem to be deeply tied to mutexes, so that's one of the reasons I though assembling this cheat is not so un-shameful.
Great. I'll push-force the removal of the rwlock cheat shortly. |
Actually there is, but it's quite subtle and specific to POSIX rwlocks. But even without this, I can imagine some contrived situations where forward progress can only happen after multiple threads have acquired a read lock and are waiting for some other condition, which would not work if rwlock was implemented as a mutex.
Actually I would suggest implementing Alternatively, it might be acceptable to stub out rwlocks in the standard library as unimplemented for now. |
We are aligned - that's what I'm saying too. Otherwise, the libStd changes become way too unwieldly.
They are used within the |
|
I've force-pushed the removal of the pthread-rwlock hack. |
| }; | ||
| pub const PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER: pthread_rwlock_t = pthread_rwlock_t { | ||
| size: [0; __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_T], | ||
| size: [__PTHREAD_INITIALIZER_BYTE; __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_T], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the plan here? If ESPIDF gains a pthread_rwlock implementation in the future then these numbers will likely change. I would cfg rwlock out until it is supported by ESPIDF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pthread_mutex_t on ESP-IDF is implemented as a pointer to a structure allocated on the heap. I would expect the same would hold true for pthread_rwlock_t, hence I kept it the same size.
These definitions might also allow me to quickly prototype an "out of tree" implementation of these in the next days/weeks and test without altering libc again.
|
OK I'm happy with rwlock as it is, with the understanding that it will soon be implemented in ESP-IDF. @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 85210e6 has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions, checks-cirrus-freebsd-11, checks-cirrus-freebsd-12, checks-cirrus-freebsd-13 |
STD support for the ESP-IDF framework Dear all, This PR is implementing libStd support for the [ESP-IDF](https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf) newlib-based framework, which is the open source SDK provided by Espressif for their MCU family (esp32, esp32s2, esp32c3 and all other forthcoming ones). Note that this PR has a [sibling PR](rust-lang/libc#2310) against the libc crate, which implements proper declarations for all ESP-IDF APIs which are necessary for libStd support. # Implementation approach The ESP-IDF framework - despite being bare metal - offers a relatively complete POSIX API based on newlib. `pthread`, BSD sockets, file descriptors, and even a small file-system VFS layer. Perhaps the only significant exception is the lack of support for processes, which is to be expected of course on bare metal. Therefore, the libStd support is implemented as a set of (hopefully small) changes to the `sys/unix` family of modules, in the form of conditional-compilation branches based either on `target_os = "espidf"` or in a couple of cases - based on `target_env = "newlib"` (the latter was already there actually and is not part of this patch). The PR also contains two new targets: - `riscv32imc-esp-espidf` - `riscv32imac-esp-espidf` ... which are essentially copies of `riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf` and `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf`, but enriched with proper `linker`, `linker_flavor`, `families`, `os`, `env` etc. specifications so that (a) the proper conditional compilation branches in libStd are selected when compiling with these targets and (b) the correct linker is used. Since support for atomics is a precondition for libStd, the `riscv32imc-esp-espidf` target additionally is configured in such a way, so as to emit libcalls to the `__sync*` & `__atomic*` GCC functions, which are already implemented in the ESP-IDF framework. If this modification is not acceptable, we can also live with only the `riscv32imac-esp-espidf` target as well. While the RiscV chips of Espressif lack native atomics support, the relevant instructions are transparently emulated in the ESP-IDF framework using invalid instruction trap. This modification was implemented specifically with Rust support in mind. # Target maintainers In case this PR eventually gets merged, you can list myself as a Target Maintainer. More importantly, Espressif (the chip vendor) is now actively involved and [embracing](https://github.com/espressif/rust-esp32-example/blob/main/docs/rust-on-xtensa.md) all [Rust-related efforts](https://github.com/esp-rs) which were originally a community effort. In light of that, I suppose `@MabezDev` - who initiated the Rust-on-Espressif efforts back in time and who now works for Espressif won't object to being listed as a maintainer as well. **EDIT:** I was hinted (thanks, `@Urgau)` that answering the Tier 3 policy explicitly might be helpful. Answers below. # Tier 3 Target Policy - answers > A proposed target or target-specific patch that substantially changes code shared with other targets (not just target-specific code) must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate team for that shared code before acceptance. Hopefully, the changes introduced by the ESP-IDF libStd support are rather on the small side. They are completely contained within the `sys/unix` set of modules (that is, aside from the obviously necessary one-liners in the `unwind` crate and in `build.rs`). > A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.) `@ivmarkov` `@MabezDev` > Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target. The two introduced targets follow as much as possible the naming conventions of the other targets. I.e. taking the bare-metal `riscv32imac_unknown_none_elf` as a base: * The name of the new target was derived by replacing `none` with `espidf` to designate the `target_os`. * `_elf` was removed, as the non-bare metal targets seem not to have it * `-newlib` was deliberately NOT added at the end, as I believe the chance of having two simultaneously active separate targets for the ESP-IDF framework with different C libraries (say, newlib vs musl) is way too small * Finally, we replaced the middle `unknown` with `esp` which is kind of the name of the whole chipset MCU family (and abbreviation from Espressif which is too long). It will stay `esp` for all RiscV32-based MCUs of the company, as they all use the riscv32imc instruction set. By necessity however (disambiguation), it will be `esp32` or `esp32s2` or `esp32s3` for the Xtensa-based MCUs as all of these have their own variation of the Xtensa architecture. (The Xtensa targets are not part of this PR, even though they would use 1:1 the same LibStd implementation provided here, as they depend on the upstreaming of the Xtensa architecture support in LLVM; this upstreaming this is currently in progress.) There was also a preceding discussion on the topic [here](espressif/rust-esp32-example#14). > Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it. We are explicitly putting an `-espidf` suffix to designate that the target is *specifically* for Rust + ESP-IDF > Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users. Agreed. > The target must not introduce license incompatibilities. To the best of our knowledge, it doesn't. > Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0). MIT + Apache 2.0 > The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements. Requirements are not changed for any other target. > If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3. The targets are for bare-metal environment which is not hosting build tools or a compiler. > Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library. The linker used by the targets is the GCC linker from the GCC toolchain cross-compiled for riscv. GNU GPL. > "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users. > Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions. > This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements. Agreed. > Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions. The targets implement libStd almost in its entirety, except for the missing support for process, as this is a bare metal platform. The process `sys\unix` module is currently stubbed to return "not implemented" errors. > The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary. Target does not (yet) support running tests. We would gladly provide all documentation how to build for the target (where?). It is currently hosted in this [README.md](https://github.com/ivmarkov/rust-esp32-std-hello) file, but will likely be moved to the [esp-rs](https://github.com/esp-rs) organization. Since the build for the target is driven by cargo and [all other tooling is downloaded automatically during the build](https://github.com/esp-rs/esp-idf-sys/blob/master/build.rs), there is no need for extensive documentation. > Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages. Agreed. > Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications. Agreed. > Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target. To the best of our knowledge, we believe we are not breaking any other target (be it tier 1, 2 or 3). > In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target. To the best of our knowledge, we have not introduced any unconditional use of a feature that affects any other target. > If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation. Agreed.
Support for the ESP-IDF framework - 3 forgotten mappings When implementing [the initial support for ESP-IDF](#2310) a month ago, I managed to forget to properly decorate these 3 libc bindings for the ESP-IDF. So now we are in the uncomfortable situation that using STD's `TcpListener::bind` results in a linkage error. This PR is fixing this, as well as properly exposing two additional ESP-IDF APIs, implemented via LwIP.
Dear all,
This PR is implementing support for the ESP-IDF newlib-based framework, which is the open source SDK provided by Espressif for their MCU family (esp32, esp32s2, esp32c3 and all other forthcoming ones).
Note that this is the second PR on that topic. Approx. an year ago, @reitermarkus contributed an initial set of changes which are merged already.
Note also that this PR has a sibling PR against Rust's libStd which enables full STD support for the Espressif chipsets (that is, modulo process support as we are obviously talking about non-kernel bare metal platform here).
A short overview of the changes:
xtensa.rstoespidf.rsand all branching through this patch is no longer done based ontarget_arch = "xtensa", but based ontarget_os = "espidf"(thistarget_osvalue is to be used by the upcoming Rust targets for the ESP-IDF framework). The primary reason for this change is that branching for ESP-IDF based only on the architecture is no longer valid: the newer Espressif chips (esp32c3 and other upcoming ones) are based on the RISCV32IM(A)C architecture, so this patch now supports both Xtensa and RiscV32. Moreover, I would expect that - given the popularity of the riscv ISA - there will be other ports of newlib to riscv which will surely have the layout and sizes of the structures etc. different from the ESP-IDF framework.pthreadstructures had sizes which did not match what is used in the ESP-IDF. Ditto for the various*_INITIALIZERconstants, which do not use 0x00, but 0xff sequences therelwip_. Rather than doing heavyweight proxying in Rust libStd, it is best to just address this here with a customlink_name, just like it had been done for MacOS and other systems.l4recase, the libc crate should NOT issue a link command to the CRT lib for the ESP-IDF, due to the way the SDK is linkedI should also admit that the patch has one little ESP-IDF-specific cheat:
pthreadsupport in ESP-IDF is still lacking RW-locks, I've implemented it as a temporary workaround by simply remapping (with"link_name") thepthread_rwlock_*symbols to their equivalentpthread_mutex_*symbols. While this implementation is suboptimal, it reduces significantly the PR changeset surface of the other PR which is against Rust libStd.