vectorcall ABI: require SSE2

[RalfJung]

According to the official docs at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/vectorcall, SSE2 is required for this ABI. Add a check that enforces this.

I put this together with the other checks ensuring the target features required for a function are present... however, since the ABI is known pre-monomorphization, it would be possible to do this check earlier, which would have the advantage of checking even in cargo check. It would have the disadvantage of spreading this code in yet more places.

The first commit just does a little refactoring of the mono-time ABI check to make it easier to add the new check.

Cc @workingjubilee

try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl

[rustbot]

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[nnethercote]

The code looks good at a nuts-and-bolts level, modulo the is_call naming nits.

I don't know anything about when the check should occur, or other such higher level things, so I will pass the baton for that:

r? @workingjubilee

[rustbot]

Could not assign reviewer from: workingjubilee.
User(s) workingjubilee are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation. Please use r? to specify someone else to assign.

[nnethercote]

Could not assign reviewer from: workingjubilee.

Eh, putting the checks next to existing checks seems good enough. Moving it earlier can be possible future work. r=me with the nits fixed.

[RalfJung]

@bors r=nnethercote

[bors]

📌 Commit cd9b5c1 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r-
#137283 (comment)

[RalfJung]

@bors rollup=never
ABI stuff is never that easy...

[RalfJung]

@bors try

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout vectorcall (switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master (retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p (rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self vectorcall --force-with-lease (update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

CONFLICT (rename/rename): Rename "tests/ui/sse-abi-checks.stderr"->"tests/ui/sse-simd-abi-checks.stderr" in branch "HEAD" rename "tests/ui/sse-abi-checks.stderr"->"tests/ui/abi/sse-abi-checks.stderr" in "heads/homu-tmp"
CONFLICT (rename/rename): Rename "tests/ui/sse-abi-checks.rs"->"tests/ui/sse-simd-abi-checks.rs" in branch "HEAD" rename "tests/ui/sse-abi-checks.rs"->"tests/ui/abi/sse-abi-checks.rs" in "heads/homu-tmp"
Auto-merging tests/ui/sse-simd-abi-checks.rs and tests/ui/abi/sse-abi-checks.rs, both renamed from tests/ui/sse-abi-checks.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/mono_checks/abi_check.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[RalfJung]

@bors r=nnethercote

[bors]

📌 Commit 83fd16f has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 83fd16f with merge b522e7c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing b522e7c to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b522e7c): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.4%)

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)	2.4%	[2.2%, 3.1%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 772.144s -> 770.364s (-0.23%)
Artifact size: 359.81 MiB -> 359.79 MiB (-0.01%)