Port lint attributes to attribute parser#152369
Port lint attributes to attribute parser#152369Bryntet wants to merge 13 commits intorust-lang:mainfrom
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Port lint attributes to attribute parser
e70b414 to
d9434c9
Compare
|
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. |
|
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Port lint attributes to attribute parser
|
@rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Could I take care of that whenever this PR's merged? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Sure, no guarantees of when that is tho :P |
|
@bors try |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Port lint attributes to attribute parser
|
Finished benchmarking commit (ac4191a): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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. @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 1.1%, secondary 3.0%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 3.2%, secondary 2.4%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 481.183s -> 479.856s (-0.28%) |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
@rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@rust-timer build 2b27470 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (2b27470): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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. @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 3.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.7%, secondary 3.8%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 479.576s -> 480.152s (0.12%) |
View all comments
Tracking issue: #131229
Ports
#[allow],#[deny],#[expect],#[forbid], and#[warn]to being parsed attrsI tried my best to make this PR as small as possible, it was difficult. I hope it isn't too difficult to review
r? @JonathanBrouwer
r? @jdonszelmann