Add NuttX based targets for RISC-V and ARM

[no1wudi]

Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.

NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.

For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.

I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the targets.

Tier 3 policy:

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.)

I will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple. For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.

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.

This is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf or thumbv7m-none-eabi and changed the os section to nuttx.

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.

I feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.

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.

The only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.

The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.

All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.

Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).

Agreed, and there is no problem here.

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.

No new dependencies are added.

Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
such libraries at all. 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.

Linking is performed by rust-lld

"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.

There are no terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.

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.

I'm not the reviewer here.

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.

Again I'm not the reviewer here.

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 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 binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the
documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target,
using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.

Building is described in platform support doc, but libstd is not supported now, I'll implement it later.

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.

Understood.

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.

Understood.

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.

I believe I didn't break any other target.

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.

I think there are no such problems in this PR.

Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of
rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork
of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)

Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @oli-obk (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in tests/ui/check-cfg

cc @Urgau

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Some changes occurred in src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support

cc @Nilstrieb

[workingjubilee]

the primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards

do ANSI/POSIX have senatorial seats or something?

[no1wudi]

do ANSI/POSIX have senatorial seats or something?

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The original text suggests that NuttX is designed to adhere to the POSIX/ANSI standards as closely as possible.

[oli-obk]

r? compiler

[michaelwoerister]

Thanks, @no1wudi! Looks good to me.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a84ddc8 with merge f03f326...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[no1wudi]

I have no idea about this error, seems like a network failure?

[michaelwoerister]

Yes, looks like a network error.
@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a84ddc8 with merge d111ccd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: michaelwoerister
Pushing d111ccd to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d111ccd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[2.1%, 7.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 772.806s -> 769.966s (-0.37%)
Artifact size: 328.80 MiB -> 328.85 MiB (0.02%)