Port `#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end]` to the new attrib… #142921

JonathanBrouwer · 2025-06-23T18:01:15Z

Ports rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start and rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for #131229 (comment)

r? @jdonszelmann

rustbot · 2025-06-23T18:01:20Z

jdonszelmann is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

rustbot · 2025-06-23T18:01:22Z

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_data_structures

cc @jdonszelmann

Changes to the size of AST and/or HIR nodes.

cc @nnethercote

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

tests/ui/stats/input-stats.stderr

JonathanBrouwer · 2025-06-23T18:07:49Z

tests/ui/parser/bad-lit-suffixes.rs

@@ -41,4 +41,5 @@ extern "C" {}

 #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start(0suffix)]
 //~^ ERROR invalid suffix `suffix` for number literal
+//~| ERROR malformed `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start` attribute input


I don't really like this change, but not sure how to fix it. I think my new lint is the one which should not be triggered, but I just get an attribute with an empty list with no way to detect that it is empty because something previously errored. @jdonszelmann advice?

I'm not 100% sure about this but this might be what dcx.has_stashed_diagnostic(span, StashKey) could be useful for

As a hack I printed the entire stashed_diagnostics when parse_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range is called and it is empty, so this does not seem to be the solution

yea because when the initial diagnostic is emitted, nothing is stashed with that stash key

take a look at the stash key enum

I pretty printed the entire stashed_diagnostics map from dcx, it is empty. So what stash key I used shouldn't matter

src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

…t, r=jdonszelmann Fix comment on NoMangle Fix comment on NoMangle. This was discussed in comments of rust-lang#142823 (comment) and rust-lang#142921

aDotInTheVoid · 2025-06-23T21:35:26Z

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

rust-bors · 2025-06-23T21:35:29Z

⌛ Trying commit 49398cf with merge 600a41a…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

Port `#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end]` to the new attrib… Ports `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start` and `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for #131229 (comment) r? `@jdonszelmann`

rust-bors · 2025-06-24T00:05:49Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 600a41a (600a41ac6ff1ea3a01ebd1fc0715b567826018f6, parent: 706f244db581212cabf2e619e0113d70999b2bbe)

Rollup merge of #142922 - JonathanBrouwer:fix-rustdoc-comment, r=jdonszelmann Fix comment on NoMangle Fix comment on NoMangle. This was discussed in comments of #142823 (comment) and #142921

rust-timer · 2025-06-24T07:56:51Z

Finished benchmarking commit (600a41a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	[0.3%, 3.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[0.3%, 3.0%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 0.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[1.3%, 1.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[2.7%, 5.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.8%, -2.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary -2.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.8%, -1.5%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-1.4%, 2.7%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 688.989s -> 689.147s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 371.96 MiB -> 372.00 MiB (0.01%)

JonathanBrouwer · 2025-06-24T08:33:50Z

^ I've boxed the u128, since there seems to be a performance regression.
Let's see if I have permission to undo the changes made by rust-timer
@bors rollup=always (since it should no longer be perf-sensitive)
@rustbot label: -perf-regression

bors · 2025-06-24T08:33:54Z

@JonathanBrouwer: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

jdonszelmann · 2025-06-24T12:00:38Z

No let's not rollup always, still want to see the final results

bors · 2025-06-24T14:42:38Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #142956) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

jdonszelmann · 2025-06-24T22:27:56Z

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2025-06-24T22:28:00Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

…ute parsing infrastructure Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <[email protected]>

JonathanBrouwer · 2025-06-25T07:45:14Z

^ Rebased & replied to your comment
@rustbot ready

rustbot assigned jdonszelmann Jun 23, 2025

JonathanBrouwer force-pushed the rustc_attributes_parser branch from 46ea3f1 to 9102b14 Compare June 23, 2025 18:02

JonathanBrouwer commented Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

aDotInTheVoid reviewed Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JonathanBrouwer force-pushed the rustc_attributes_parser branch from 9102b14 to 49398cf Compare June 23, 2025 18:23

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2025

Fix comment on NoMangle #142922

Merged

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 23, 2025

jdonszelmann mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2025

Tracking issue: Attribute refactor #131229

Open

9 tasks

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jun 24, 2025

JonathanBrouwer force-pushed the rustc_attributes_parser branch from 49398cf to 37abd08 Compare June 24, 2025 08:33

rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 24, 2025

JonathanBrouwer force-pushed the rustc_attributes_parser branch from 37abd08 to e6396e3 Compare June 24, 2025 15:12

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 24, 2025

Port #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end] to the new attrib…

d5586dc

…ute parsing infrastructure Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <[email protected]>

JonathanBrouwer force-pushed the rustc_attributes_parser branch from e6396e3 to d5586dc Compare June 25, 2025 07:44

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jun 25, 2025

Port #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end] to the new attrib… #142921

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Port #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end] to the new attrib… #142921

Uh oh!

Conversation

JonathanBrouwer commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aDotInTheVoid commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rust-bors bot commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Jun 24, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bors commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

jdonszelmann commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

jdonszelmann commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Port `#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end]` to the new attrib… #142921

Port `#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end]` to the new attrib… #142921

JonathanBrouwer commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading