port lint attributes - #162811

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 · 2026-10-03T14:25:43Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-10-03T15:30:21Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 49b38b0 (49b38b0a4ce914e9e8a9b521aff7200e8311a6bc)
Base parent: d6b6dc7 (d6b6dc7982ef5d9117d96d018dfd83098d0471a1)

rust-timer · 2026-10-03T16:14:00Z

Finished benchmarking commit (49b38b0): comparison URL.

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

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

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%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	53
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, 0.2%]	49

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.8%, secondary 0.5%)

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)	3.9%	[2.3%, 5.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.2%, -2.8%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.3%)

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)	5.3%	[3.4%, 7.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.3%	[-9.4%, -3.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	54
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	49
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	54

Bootstrap: 489.814s -> 491.065s (0.26%)
Artifact size: 406.62 MiB -> 408.64 MiB (0.50%)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-03T16:17:27Z

Ooh that's better! 🎉

JonathanBrouwer

These are the last comments I have.
I think there's a lot of cleanup work to do after this PR, but this PR is now in a state that merging it will make the situation better rather than worse, so I'm fine with doing these in followup PRs to keep the size of this one manageable.
We should make a list of follow up items though, so they're not forgotten.

@petrochenkov I noticed that you assigned yourself a while ago, would you still like to take a look at this PR?

View changes since this review

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-04T06:50:54Z

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


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

mejrs · 2026-10-04T13:07:15Z

Interesting how this benchmark differs from #152369 (comment)

I wonder if it has something to do with how that PR also moved all the lint store stuff to attribute parsing.

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-04T13:50:53Z

I think indeed there's likely more performance to gain here, but it's already positive so we can delay that :)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-04T14:01:36Z

You did make LintCheck slightly bigger by making that an Ident, I don't expect that to matter but let's make sure
@bors try @rust-timer queue

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-10-04T15:02:41Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: be9d55c (be9d55ce5f1537cfe68101e2ffd17e70d4fd3b0e)
Base parent: 4ddbc06 (4ddbc06ea09abcda34f80baf31cc9bc2686b0ae6)

rust-timer · 2026-10-04T16:13:01Z

Finished benchmarking commit (be9d55c): comparison URL.

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

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

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%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	25
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, 0.2%]	30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary -3.2%)

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)	-2.6%	[-6.0%, -1.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.7%, -2.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-6.0%, -1.0%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 4.1%, secondary 4.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[2.1%, 12.9%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 491.424s -> 491.568s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 408.69 MiB -> 408.55 MiB (-0.03%)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-04T17:24:27Z

Perf seems slightly worse than the previous run but it's still positive, and the behavior is more correct now, so let's keep things this way

JonathanBrouwer

r=me
Thanks so much for all the effort! This has been a lot of work, both from you and @Bryntet

@petrochenkov do you still want to take a look?
@bors rollup=never

View changes since this review

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