port lint attributes by mejrs · Pull Request #162811 · rust-lang/rust

mejrs · 2026-09-15T13:17:22Z

Ports the lint attributes. I've kept this as small as possible, but there is a decent amount of clean up/refactoring that can be done afterwards,

r? @JonathanBrouwer @jdonszelmann
cc @Bryntet

rustbot · 2026-09-15T13:17:25Z

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

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_ir

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

clippy is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-clippy instead.

cc @rust-lang/clippy

mejrs · 2026-09-15T13:21:15Z

+LL |     let y: u32 = (x?).try_into().unwrap();
+   |                  +  +++++++++++++++++++++


Uh yeah I don't know what's happening here

View changes since the review

I think this is minor enough that I'll put it on my todo list as something that we should fix after merging this PR

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-09-15T13:23:07Z

I'll take a look at this on Friday! Thanks for doing this!

Bryntet · 2026-09-15T13:27:28Z

Thanks for picking this up ❤️

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-09-15T13:34:09Z

cc @cjgillot @petrochenkov in case you'd like to take a look (as reviewers of the original pr #155691)

mejrs · 2026-09-15T13:34:44Z

I'll take a look at this on Friday! Thanks for doing this!

I'll go ahead and cherrypick some changes from this PR then, some things can be split off.

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-09-15T14:10:12Z

Blocked on #162813

mejrs · 2026-09-15T15:58:16Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-09-15T16:59:49Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 837b948 (837b9481206c510936be02f4b200f8db8aae1286)
Base parent: 1936d44 (1936d44457352da43b2d740672b940ebc715ac38)

rust-timer · 2026-09-15T17:47:26Z

Finished benchmarking commit (837b948): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - BENCHMARK(S) FAILED

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

❗ ❗ ❗ ❗ ❗
Warning ⚠️: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

image-0.25.6
Job failure

❗ ❗ ❗ ❗ ❗

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)	0.6%	[0.2%, 3.5%]	197
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 5.8%]	170
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-36.2%	[-77.2%, -10.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-77.2%, 3.5%]	201

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -7.1%, secondary -1.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 3.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.4%, 4.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-20.2%	[-22.6%, -17.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.1%	[-9.4%, -3.6%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-7.1%	[-22.6%, 3.1%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary -7.6%, secondary 2.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[1.3%, 4.3%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.0%, 5.2%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-36.8%	[-77.7%, -10.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-4.5%, -4.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-7.6%	[-77.7%, 4.3%]	15

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 495.925s -> 496.275s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 406.90 MiB -> 407.07 MiB (0.04%)

mejrs · 2026-10-12T21:00:26Z

I went through the PR and collected a list of items for follow up PRs. Not all are things we definitely want to do, but at least we can consider them:

Some thoughts on some of them:

* see if we can remove `rest: Option<Box[Symbol]>>` for perf

with register_tool comes the ability to define custom lint names (which can have as many segments as the user would like), so this will be a lang matter

* lint resolution in parsing [port lint attributes #162811 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/162811#discussion_r4046648708)

If macro lints ever happen (in the form of #135432 or smth else) we likely need a tcx to resolve these lints, which cannot be done in attribute parsing

* remove unsafe? [port lint attributes #162811 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/162811#discussion_r4173185326)

a "downcast_slice" method could also exist in std or e.g. rustc_data_structures.

* can we avoid calling `meta_item_list`? [port lint attributes #162811 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/162811#discussion_r4173196063)

I think a "just try to parse this without actually erroring" might work (we kinda do this for diagnostic attributes), but it's a bit brittle for my liking, I'm also not sure I like ShouldEmit's state at this time.

Another option is to force pre-expansion lints to be crate level only (like #163714) but this would also be a lang (affects new_keyword lint) and clippy matter.

* Can we unify `LintCheckKind` and `Level`?

Level also has a ForceWarn variant, which has no lint check attribute counterpart.

rustbot · 2026-10-13T12:28:37Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

mejrs · 2026-10-13T13:06:30Z

@rustbot ready

JonathanBrouwer

I'm looking at this, which is the rangediff since I last reviewed the PR
https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-range-diff/rust-lang/rust/a639ea0890c0977b1c45596fd6b5f9a70a1d67da..89b2c2ca86143266325fc3ddc3ae46d6b8077850/91e426a0518d5bb3672330c5238ccda6fd26fb54..ea4a0bd0643d32eddc2f0007ae38c09ec38aeed9

Why was the change in compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/thir/cx/expr.rs removed?
I liked having the lint attr check there

View changes since this review

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-13T16:19:02Z

Ah @mejrs pointed out in DM that this entire codepath was removed by #163931

JonathanBrouwer

(actually r=JonathanBrouwer,petrochenkov)
Thanks so much for the hard work in getting this attempt merged @mejrs

View changes since this review

rust-bors · 2026-10-13T16:20:12Z

📌 Commit ea4a0bd has been approved by JonathanBrouwer,petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-13T16:21:38Z

@bors rollup=never note=more likely than average to cause regressions, perf

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-13T18:21:21Z

@bors p=6
Scheduling

rust-bors · 2026-10-13T22:02:57Z

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: JonathanBrouwer,petrochenkov
Duration: 3h 18m 54s
Pushing 822182d to main...

github-actions · 2026-10-13T22:06:11Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 1e16699 (parent) -> 822182d (this PR)

Test differences

Show 40 test diffs

40 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 822182db4c4a1827256881d8c7aa685f0bcf2b11 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

test-x86_64-msvc-ext2: 1h 7m -> 1h 54m (+68.6%)
test-x86_64-gnu-nopt: 1h 31m -> 2h 31m (+64.6%)
dist-powerpc64le-linux-gnu: 1h 2m -> 1h 35m (+51.3%)
dist-loongarch64-linux: 1h 23m -> 2h 6m (+50.4%)
dist-x86_64-illumos: 1h 17m -> 1h 54m (+48.7%)
test-x86_64-gnu: 2h 36m -> 1h 37m (-37.6%)
test-x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3: 2h 1m -> 1h 19m (-35.1%)
test-x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-1: 1h 33m -> 1h 1m (-33.8%)
test-x86_64-gnu-llvm-22: 58m 51s -> 39m 4s (-33.6%)
dist-loongarch64-musl: 1h 34m -> 2h 5m (+33.3%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2026-10-13T22:50:03Z

Finished benchmarking commit (822182d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
a new PR with a fix for the regression.
If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
were already notified of this PR).

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

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	20
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	40
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, 0.2%]	46

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.5%, secondary 5.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.5%	[4.5%, 4.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.2%	[4.1%, 6.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.5%	[4.5%, 4.5%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -6.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.0%	[-7.1%, -5.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 487.497s -> 485.154s (-0.48%)
Artifact size: 406.62 MiB -> 406.56 MiB (-0.02%)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-14T06:22:08Z

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

This matches expectations.
Improvements outweigh regressions, and there are some ideas for possible further improvements

rustbot assigned JonathanBrouwer Sep 15, 2026

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

mejrs force-pushed the port_lint_check branch from 5f087e2 to c90513f Compare September 15, 2026 13:33

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2026

Re-port lint attributes to attribute parsers #155691

Closed

petrochenkov self-assigned this Sep 15, 2026

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/ui/unpretty/exhaustive.hir.stdout

mejrs mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2026

Pre lint port cleanups #162813

Merged

JonathanBrouwer added the S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. label Sep 15, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

mejrs force-pushed the port_lint_check branch from c90513f to 5c86bdf Compare September 15, 2026 14:32

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 Sep 15, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2026

Auto merge of #162811 - mejrs:port_lint_check, r=<try>

837b948

port lint attributes

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 Sep 15, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

petrochenkov approved these changes Oct 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

mejrs added 7 commits October 13, 2026 14:18

port lint attributes

bb0f4a6

ditch attr/lint index

9e5c570

misc perf stuff

e547f10

allocate less

5c328d4

comment on attr_id field

d1b5988

implement feedback

6f28832

fix attribute test

d8ab1f9

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fix tidy

ea4a0bd

JonathanBrouwer requested changes Oct 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

JonathanBrouwer approved these changes Oct 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Oct 15, 2026

Toolchain upgrade to nightly-2026-10-22 flux-rs/flux#1847

Merged

		LL \| let y: u32 = (x?).try_into().unwrap();
		\| + +++++++++++++++++++++

Conversation

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

mejrs Sep 15, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Bryntet commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Sep 15, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - BENCHMARK(S) FAILED

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

mejrs commented Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

mejrs commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 13, 2026

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Oct 13, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

mejrs commented Sep 15, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

mejrs Sep 15, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

mejrs commented Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited

Loading

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited

Loading