Skip to content

RFC: cfg_target_version #3750

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 28 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
28 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c08880c
RFC: cfg_os_version_min
ChrisDenton Dec 27, 2024
d78f82b
Update RFC PR number
ChrisDenton Dec 27, 2024
58ae3de
Remove "in use"
ChrisDenton Jan 2, 2025
0b8f912
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Jan 4, 2025
c3f33b8
Mention other possible syntax
ChrisDenton Jan 5, 2025
6e2245c
Update prior art to include how C does it
ChrisDenton Jan 5, 2025
35dc984
Update motivation and guide
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
5332c9b
Update reference level explanation
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
859a733
Add a linting section
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
6c7e0c6
Remove double "additional"
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
16c6321
Add default supported target motivation
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
68c00f8
Add a note about the standard library
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
6b54296
Expand on the version string
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
a9b5b74
Note that a higher baseline isn't yet supported
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
b71051b
Fix some headings
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
5cde247
Update 3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
35896d1
Update 3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025
439fcea
Make future possibilities use bullet points
ChrisDenton Jan 29, 2025
89b604d
Clarify version string comparision
ChrisDenton Jan 29, 2025
c889a32
Update 3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Jan 29, 2025
d9715b4
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 9, 2025
35ee570
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 9, 2025
157b501
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 9, 2025
0edbe04
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 9, 2025
cd0e8a9
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 9, 2025
fb06a58
Update text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
ChrisDenton Apr 10, 2025
cf3cd1d
Rename os_version_min to target_version
ChrisDenton May 20, 2025
482144c
Rename file
ChrisDenton May 20, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
130 changes: 130 additions & 0 deletions text/3750-cfg-os-version-min.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
- Feature Name: `cfg_os_version_min`
- Start Date: 2024-12-27
- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3750](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3750)
- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)

# Summary
[summary]: #summary

A new `cfg` predicate `os_version_min` that allows users to declare the minimum primary (target-defined) API level required/supported by a block.
E.g. `cfg!(os_version_min("windows", "6.1.7600"))` would match Windows version >= 6.1.7600.

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation

The target API version is the version number of the "API set" that a particular binary relies on in order to run properly. An API set is the set of APIs that a host operating system makes available for use by binaries running on that platform. Newer versions of a platform may either add or remove APIs from the API set.

Crates including the standard library must account for various API version requirements for the crate to be able to run. Rust currently has no mechanism for crates to compile different code (or to gracefully fail to compile) depending on the minimum targeted API version. This leads to the following issues:

* Relying on dynamic detection of API support has a runtime cost. The standard library often performs [dynamic API detection](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f283d3f02cf3ed261a519afe05cde9e23d1d9278/library/std/src/sys/windows/compat.rs) falling back to older (and less ideal) APIs or forgoing entire features when a certain API is not available. For example, the [current `Mutex` impl](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/234099d1d12bef9d6e81a296222fbc272dc51d89/library/std/src/sys/windows/mutex.rs#L1-L20) has a Windows XP fallback. Users who only ever intend to run their code on newer versions of Windows will still pay a runtime cost for this dynamic API detection. Providing a mechanism for specifying which minimum API version the user cares about, allows for statically specifying which APIs a binary can use.
* Certain features cannot be dynamically detected and thus limit possible implementations. The libc crate must use [a raw syscalls on Android for `accept4`](https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/1968), because this was only exposed in libc in version 21 of the Android API. Additionally libstd must dynamically load `signal` for all versions of Android despite it being required only for versions 19 and below. In the future there might be similar changes where there is no way to implement a solution for older versions.
* Trying to compile code with an implicit dependency on a API version greater than what is supported by the target platform leads to linker errors. For example, the `x86_64-pc-windows-msvc` target's rustc implementation requires `SetThreadErrorMode` which was introduced in Windows 7. This means trying to build the compiler on older versions of Windows will fail with [a less than helpful linker error](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35471).

# Guide-level explanation
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation

Rust targets are often thought of as monoliths.
The thought is that if you compile a binary for that target, that binary should be able to run on any system that fits that target's description.
However, this is not actually true.
For example, when compiling for `x86_64-pc-windows-msvc` and linking with the standard library, my binary has implicitly taken a dependency on a set of APIs that Windows exposes for certain functionality.
If I try to run my binary on older systems that do not have those APIs, then my binary will fail to run.
When compiling for a certain target, you are therefore declaring a dependency on a minimum target API version that you rely on for your binary to run.

Each standard library target uses a sensible minimum API version. for `x86_64-pc-windows-msvc` the minimum API version is "10.0.10240" which corresponds to Windows 10's initial release.
For `x86_64-win7-pc-windows-msvc` the minimum API version is "6.1.7600" which corresponds to Windows 7.
However, inferring the API version from the target name isn't ideal especially as it can change over time.

Instead you use the `os_version_min` predicates to specify the minimum API levels of various parts of the operating system. For example:

* `os_version_min(“windows”, <string>)` would test the [minimum build version](https://gaijin.at/en/infos/windows-version-numbers) of Windows.
* `os_version_min(“libc”, <string>)` would test the version of libc.
* `os_version_min(“kernel”, <string>)` would test the version of the kernel.

Let’s use `os_version_min(“windows”, …)` as an example. It should be clear how this example would be extended to the other `cfg` predicates. The predicate allows you to conditionally compile code based on the set minimum API version. For example an implementation of mutex locking on Windows might look like this:

```rust
pub unsafe fn unlock(&self) {
*self.held.get() = false;
if cfg!(os_version_min(“windows”, "6.0.6000") { // API version greater than Vista
c::ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(raw(self)) // Use the optimized ReleaseSRWLockExclusive routine
} else {
(*self.remutex()).unlock() // Fall back to an alternative that works on older Windows versions
}
}
```

For targets where `os_version_min(“windows”, …)` does not make sense (i.e., non-Windows targets), the `cfg` predicate will return `false` and emit a warning saying that the particular `cfg` predicate is not supported on that target. Therefore, it's important to pair `os_version_min(“windows”, …)` with a `cfg(windows)` using the existing mechanisms for combining `cfg` predicates.

The above example works exactly the same way with the other platform API `cfg` predicates just with different values and different target support.

These predicates do not assume any semantic versioning information. The specified predicates are simply listed in order. The only semantics that are assumed is that code compiled with the `cfg` predicates works for all versions greater than or equal to that version.

**Note:** Here it would be important to link to documentation showing the `cfg` predicates and the different version strings that are supported.

# Reference-level explanation
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to discuss here what happens when you link libraries compiled with different (even though we're not specifying how the user, we will need a mechanism for it at some point)

Specifically, it'd be nice to talk about the pre-compiled standard library, and how it effectively becomes a requirement to use -Zbuild-std if the user wants to enable this kind of stuff for the standard library.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Possibly also interesting is soundness concerns (what happens if I use a standard library compiled with a newer version of glibc/Windows APIs/macOS APIs, while I link with a binary compiled for older APIs?).

I don't think there are any soundness concerns, at least not on Apple platforms (the dynamic linker will simply fail to work if using an API for a newer system), but it's important that we're certain of this (and that function pointers for example aren't simply replaced by NULL if loaded on an older OS).

Copy link
Member Author

@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton Jan 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There aren't unsoundness issues for Windows. Either a dll or symbol is available or it isn't and there's an error. EDIT: I'm being told that attempting to use incompatible glibcs will also cause an error.

I don't know if that's true of all OSes but Rust libs do carry around metadata with them so if they declare incompatible versions then the compiler could simply error. And linking together native static libraries compiled for different API versions would seem to be squarely in the realm of "you must know what you're doing" (and that's true more broadly when linking native libs). However, considering the current narrow scope of this RFC, it would not be a situation that arises any more often than it currently does. So it may only worth a mention in future possibilities.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd actually like to update my previous statement, I suspect that it may actually be unsound to use the combination dependency (compiled for newer OS) + user_crate (compiled for older OS) + link (for older OS), since e.g. LLVM may do codegen optimizations that are only valid on newer architectures (which one can do because Apple restricts OS upgrades after a certain point, so we know that newer OS versions only run on newer hardware, and can be required to have for example a certain level of SIMD features).

Related here is #3716.

But I agree that this is only tangentially related to the RFC.

[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation

The `os_version_min` predicate allows users to conditionally compile code based on the API version supported by the target platform.
Each platform is responsible for defining a default key, a set of keys it supports, and functions that are able to compare the version strings they use.
A set of comparison functions can be provided by `rustc` for common formats such as 2- and 3-part semantic versioning.
When a platform detects a key it doesn’t support it will return `false` and emit a warning.

Each target platform will set the minimum API versions it supports.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So there is no way for the user to configure which minimum API version they want to use? That would make it impossible for eg the libc crate to gate api's behind #[cfg(os_version_min)] corresponding to the libc version that introduced the API in question.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. One of the issues with the original proposals was there was too much going on. This RFC aims to add the minimally useful feature. Adding compiler flags and Cargo configs to control the minimum version can be a future extension.

With this RFC it is still possible for libc to gate APIs like that. However, you'd need a new target in order to set a different minimal libc version.


## Versioning Schema

Version strings can take on nearly any form and while there are some standard formats, such as semantic versioning or release dates, projects can change schemas or provide aliases for some or all of their releases.
Because of this diversity in version strings each platform will be responsible for defining a type implementing `FromStr`, `Display`, and `Ord` for each key they support (or using one of the pre-defined types).

## Future Compatibility

The functions for parsing and comparing version strings will need to be updated whenever a new API is added, when the version format changes, or when new aliases need to be added.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

Each supported platform will need to implement version string parsing logic (or re-use some provided defaults), maintain the logic in response to future changes, and update any version alias tables.

# Rationale and alternatives
[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives

The overall mechanism proposed here builds on other well established primitives in Rust such as `cfg`.
A mechanism which tries to bridge cross-platform differences under one `min_target_api_version` predicate [was suggested](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/b0f94000a3ddbd159013e100e48cd887ba2a0b54/text/0000-min-target-api-version.md) but was rejected due to different platforms having divergent needs.

For many platforms, the `target_os` name and the `os_version_min` name will be identical.
Even platforms that have multiple possible `versions` relevant to the OS will still have one primary version.
E.g. for `linux` the primary version would refer to the kernel with `libc` being a secondary OS library version.
Therefore it would be possible to simplify the syntax for the primary target OS version.
E.g.: `cfg(target_os("macos", min_version = "..."))` or by having `os_version_min("macos", "...")` imply `#[cfg(target_os = "macos")]`.
This means we'd need a more general syntax for `libc` and potentially other versioned libraries where the target OS is ambiguous.

# Prior art
[prior-art]: #prior-art

In C it's common to be able to target different versions based on a preprocessor macro.
For example, on Windows `WINVER` can be used:

```c
// If the minimum version is at least Windows 10
#if (WINVER >= _WIN32_WINNT_WIN10)
// ...
#endif
```

This RFC is largely a version of [RFC #3379](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3379) more narrowly scoped to just the most minimal lang changes.
That RFC was in turn an updated version of [this RFC draft](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3036), with the changes reflecting conversations from the draft review process and [further Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/CFG.20OS.20Redux.20.28migrated.29/near/294738760).

# Unresolved questions
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another unresolved question to add: How should this work in Cargo [target.'cfg(os_version_min(...))'.dependencies] sections?

[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions

Custom targets usually specify their configurations in JSON files.
It is unclear how the target maintainers would add functions, types, and version compatibility information to these files.

What exactly should the syntax be?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To further the bikeshedding: os_version_min is definitely wrong, it should at the very least be version_min (since it works for libc too, which is not an OS).

But how about the name available?

exftern "C" {
    #[cfg(any(
        available("libc", "x.y.z"),
        available("macos", "10.12"),
    ))]
    fn foo();
}

if cfg!(available("windows", "10.0.10240")) {
    // ...
}

A nice thing about available is that it reads a tiny bit more like English:

#[cfg(version_min("macos", "10.12"))] // configured where version minimum macOS 10.12
#[cfg(available("macos", "10.12"))]   // configured where available macOS 10.12.

While still avoiding the "does cfg!(xyz("macos", "10.12")) mean >10.12 or >=10.12" issue.

This could also tie in nicely with a macro available! that first does the static check, and then falls back to a runtime version check against e.g. gnu_get_libc_version() (not proposing this macro here, and probably not implement-able everywhere either, but just to get the idea across):

if available!("libc", "x.y.z") || available!("macos", "10.12") {
    // ... Dynamically use some new feature or API, maybe with `dlsym` or libloading.
}

(Note: I'm heavily biased by Swift's @available).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cfg(available) is confusable with cfg(accessible).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we wanted parity with cfg(version), we could do something like cfg(target_version("macos", "10.12")). They both follow the >= rule, so it would be good to align their naming scheme.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be truly consistent we'd need cfg(version) to be like cfg(version("rust", "1.123")).

But ok, I'll change this (again) to use cfg(target_version). However, if there's more bikeshedding I'll probably wait for lang to decide because it's a pain to update.

Copy link
Contributor

@madsmtm madsmtm Apr 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine to leave the name as os_version_min for now, and only change it once we reach a consensus. Just noting the alternatives in the RFC text would be enough.

Also, adding another option: cfg(platform_version("macos", "10.12")).

Copy link
Member Author

@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton Apr 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok I'll leave it pending t-lang feedback but add some of the ideas to the RFC.

Though I do think platform_version, os_version and target_version all sound more or less like synonyms to me.

Copy link
Contributor

@traviscross traviscross May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Whatever else we do, I'd suggest we drop the _min. That's going to be implied, just as it is for cfg(version("..")).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've renamed to target_version as that is, I think, at least closer to the final name and seems to have the most support above. But whether or not that's the final name is still an open question.

Should we draw a distinction between cases where the `os_version_min` directly implies a specific `target_os` and cases where it doesn't (see alternatives)?

# Future possibilities
[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities

The compiler could allow setting a higher minimum OS version than the target's default.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remark: I'll add that rustc already has a mechanism for doing exactly this on Apple platforms, namely the *_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET family of environment variables.

With the `build-std` feature, each target could optionally support lowering the API version below the default.