Revert "Port lint attributes to attribute parser"

[JonathanBrouwer]

This PR reverts the following two PRs:

• Post-attribute ports cleanup pt. 1 #154808
• Port lint attributes to attribute parser #152369

This was not a clean revert, I manually solved several merge conflicts.

Closes #154878
Closes #154800
Closes #155008
Re-opens #132218 (this was never closed, oops)

r? @ghost

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs

cc @jdonszelmann

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_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
  Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
  • 30107e8
  • 65745a1

[matthiaskrgr]

are there any tests for the issues being closed?

[JonathanBrouwer]

Not yet, I should include those, good idea

[JonathanBrouwer]

I added the regression tests
r? compiler

[lqd]

Thanks a ton. This looks completely sensible to me, so r=me when green.

[apiraino]

thank you so much @JonathanBrouwer <3

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors r=lqd,mati865 rollup=never p=10
rollup=never because of perf effects (and this is a massive pr)
p=10 because I would love this to be merged before the beta cutoff

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 9c3661d has been approved by lqd,mati865

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: lqd,mati865
Duration: 3h 15m 6s
Pushing dd82fd2 to main...

[github-actions]

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 f5eca4f (parent) -> dd82fd2 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 116 test diffs

Stage 1

• [incremental] tests/incremental/cache-lint-expectation.rs: [missing] -> pass (J2)
• [ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/lints/renamed-lint-still-applies-2.rs: pass -> [missing] (J2)
• [ui] tests/ui/error-codes/E0452.rs: [missing] -> pass (J2)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/malformed-expect.rs: [missing] -> pass (J2)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/pre-expansion-expect.rs: [missing] -> pass (J2)

Stage 2

• [ui] tests/ui/error-codes/E0452.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/malformed-expect.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/pre-expansion-expect.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
• [incremental] tests/incremental/cache-lint-expectation.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
• [ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/lints/renamed-lint-still-applies-2.rs: pass -> [missing] (J3)

Additionally, 106 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-debug, x86_64-gnu-gcc, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
• J1: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-gcc, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
• J2: x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3
• J3: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard dd82fd2034e5c86c6f0f8070dc5679703cc4fe03 --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

1. test-various: 1h 30m -> 2h 10m (+45.0%)
2. i686-msvc-1: 2h 15m -> 3h 6m (+37.1%)
3. dist-apple-various: 2h 6m -> 1h 30m (-28.7%)
4. dist-x86_64-mingw: 2h 38m -> 2h 2m (-22.7%)
5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-1: 1h 4m -> 1h 16m (+17.1%)
6. pr-check-1: 28m 13s -> 33m 1s (+17.1%)
7. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3: 1h 44m -> 1h 58m (+13.5%)
8. optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend: 2h 23m -> 2h 41m (+12.5%)
9. i686-gnu-1: 2h 7m -> 2h 23m (+12.5%)
10. x86_64-gnu-tools: 57m 9s -> 1h 3m (+11.5%)

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]

Finished benchmarking commit (dd82fd2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	24
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	39
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.0%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	24

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary -3.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.9%, 1.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.8%, 1.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-7.3%, -1.5%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-0.4%, 1.1%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -3.3%, secondary -2.1%)

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)	3.5%	[3.2%, 3.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-4.4%, -2.1%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.6%, -3.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-4.4%, -2.1%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 490.573s -> 488.849s (-0.35%)
Artifact size: 395.57 MiB -> 395.54 MiB (-0.01%)