allow array-style simd in inline asm

[Ezrashaw]

Required for MCP#621 to be implemented.

r? @workingjubilee

[scottmcm]

Good find! And a great example of why there should be only one way to do things, so we can't miss places like this 🙂

[workingjubilee]

I am aware that some of my review, if followed-through on, may wind up with code that "ends up in the same place". My reasoning is that neither you nor me are the people doing the most twiddling with our inline assembly implementation, so I think it is best if this code remains as similar to how it was as possible, even if I think the factored-out function is otherwise a good improvement and essential for this change.

[Ezrashaw]

I am aware that some of my review, if followed-through on, may wind up with code that "ends up in the same place".

Fair enough, I've updated the PR to align with that. Also I've moved the test to the asm subdirectory.

[workingjubilee]

This is a backwards-compatible change that purely adds new permitted behavior for unstable types and features. I have run the test suite and it Works On My Machine™.

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 8534183 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r- rollup=iffy
failed in a rollup #110679 (comment)

[Ezrashaw]

I've added the force-host UI test header; I believe this should fix the problem.

[Noratrieb]

I think we have shorter ways of making a test x86-only, don't we?

[Ezrashaw]

@scottmcm I've changed the UI test headers, CI passing.

compiletest headers I will never understand lol.

[workingjubilee]

I'd say "I should probably have caught that" except... yes, compiletest headers are many and confounding, sometimes.

[workingjubilee]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit d31e8a4 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[workingjubilee]

Opened an issue for handling this better in the test suite or tidy checks: #110751

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d31e8a4 with merge b72460f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing b72460f to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b72460f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	2.1%	[0.9%, 2.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.4%	[5.2%, 8.1%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[0.9%, 2.9%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[2.4%, 4.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Cranelift-codegen and keccak are known to exhibit bimodality.