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

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.

mejrs · 2026-09-15T13:48:32Z

-        #[allow()]
-        { }
-    }
+    fn expr_block() { { } unsafe { } 'a: { } { } { } }


We drop these empty lint attributes, this is nice because when we query for the attribute we know it's non-empty and we can do things like lints.first().unwrap()

View changes since the review

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%)

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-09-19T16:42:40Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 6091374 (6091374e5f097ca91586512a9ae4c835892d1bb3)
Base parent: 36b04f3 (36b04f3ad12a98b1a3cf9efe5313306ef7d5848d)

rust-timer · 2026-09-19T17:27:11Z

Finished benchmarking commit (6091374): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.1%, 3.4%]	190
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.1%, 6.0%]	149
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 3.4%]	190

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -2.0%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-3.0%, -1.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-5.2%, -0.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-3.0%, -1.3%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 3.4%, secondary 3.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[1.7%, 5.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[2.0%, 5.4%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[1.7%, 5.0%]	7

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	70
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	53
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	70

Bootstrap: 497.193s -> 499.023s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 408.84 MiB -> 408.82 MiB (-0.00%)

mejrs · 2026-09-19T18:17:38Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-09-19T19:21:40Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4b49dca (4b49dca8eb42071c8cc3df24e58dedfe791172a8)
Base parent: feaadee (feaadeeaca7db0594da854e7c8c07495341c7439)

rust-timer · 2026-09-19T20:22:11Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4b49dca): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.0%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.3%, 0.4%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.1%, secondary -2.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-3.9%, -3.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-5.0%, -1.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-3.9%, 1.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.0%)

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)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 502.551s -> 499.436s (-0.62%)
Artifact size: 406.86 MiB -> 408.95 MiB (0.51%)

mejrs · 2026-09-19T22:41:22Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

port lint attributes

rust-bors · 2026-09-19T23:42:00Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9ae8a4a (9ae8a4a92916fb5730164bd285bbe4675e106e09)
Base parent: feaadee (feaadeeaca7db0594da854e7c8c07495341c7439)

rust-timer · 2026-09-20T00:26:11Z

Finished benchmarking commit (9ae8a4a): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	26
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.4%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary -0.8%)

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)	2.8%	[2.6%, 2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.9%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.9%, -2.3%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary 0.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.7%, 2.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.9%, 3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.7%, 2.9%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 502.551s -> 496.987s (-1.11%)
Artifact size: 406.86 MiB -> 408.96 MiB (0.52%)

Bryntet · 2026-09-20T16:02:56Z

+            DUMMY_SP,
+            CRATE_NODE_ID,
+            Some(self.features),
+            ShouldEmit::ErrorsAndLints { recovery: Recovery::Allowed },


if you make this ShouldEmit::Nothing then the majority of all the duplicate lints go away. Issue is that this leads to delay_bug from pre-ast-expansion parsing which leads to ICE

there is a way to do this a bit hackily (basically in lintcheck parsing, check if ShouldEmit::Nothing and then never return an error)

there is also the possibility of changing how pre-ast-expansion emits lints. I've been considering making a PR where we change so that pre-ast-expansion doesn't parse lint attrs but instead just saves diagnostic + span and then that gets sent to the lint store that we instantiate later.

View changes since the review

there is a way to do this a bit hackily (basically in lintcheck parsing, check if ShouldEmit::Nothing and then never return an error)

I don't really want to do this (especially not in this PR), it sounds rather brittle.

In any case I would prefer to just not parse these attributes at all, perhaps we can force all all pre-expansion lints to be crate level only which would sidestep this problem.

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

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