about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2025-09-13Rollup merge of #146389 - jdonszelmann:no-std, r=oli-obkJana Dönszelmann-0/+2
Convert `no_std` and `no_core` to the new attribute infrastructure r? ```@oli-obk``` Also added a test for these, since we didn't have any and I was kind of surprised new diagnostics didn't break anything hehe
2025-09-10Rollup merge of #146178 - folkertdev:static-align, ↵Matthias Krüger-1/+7
r=jdonszelmann,ralfjung,traviscross Implement `#[rustc_align_static(N)]` on `static`s Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146177 ```rust #![feature(static_align)] #[rustc_align_static(64)] static SO_ALIGNED: u64 = 0; ``` We need a different attribute than `rustc_align` because unstable attributes are tied to their feature (we can't have two unstable features use the same unstable attribute). Otherwise this uses all of the same infrastructure as `#[rustc_align]`. r? `@traviscross`
2025-09-09port `#[no_std]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-09-09port `#[no_core]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-09-09allow `#[rustc_align_static(N)]` on `static`sFolkert de Vries-1/+7
We need a different attribute than `rustc_align` because unstable attributes are tied to their feature (we can't have two unstable features use the same unstable attribute). Otherwise this uses all of the same infrastructure as `#[rustc_align]`.
2025-09-08port `#[pattern_complexity_limit]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-09-08port `#[type_length_limit]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-09-08port `#[move_size_limit]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-09-08port `#[recursion_limit]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-0/+1
2025-08-28Rollup merge of #142472 - GuillaumeGomez:doc-attribute-attribute, r=fmeaseGuillaume Gomez-11/+68
Add new `doc(attribute = "...")` attribute Fixes rust-lang/rust#141123. The implementation and purpose of this new `#[doc(attribute = "...")]` attribute is very close to `#[doc(keyword = "...")]`. Which means that luckily for us, most of the code needed was already in place and `@Noratrieb` nicely wrote a first draft that helped me implement this new attribute very fast. Now with all this said, there is one thing I didn't do yet: adding a `rustdoc-js-std` test. I added GUI tests with search results for attributes so should be fine but I still plan on adding one for it once documentation for builtin attributes will be written into the core/std libs. You can test it [here](https://rustdoc.crud.net/imperio/doc-attribute-attribute/foo/index.html). cc `@Noratrieb` `@Veykril`
2025-08-28Add ui test for unsupported `doc(attribute = "...")` case for attributes ↵Guillaume Gomez-0/+1
with namespace
2025-08-28Create new `Item::is_fake_item` method as equivalent to check for ↵Guillaume Gomez-21/+45
`is_primitive`, `is_keyword` and `is_attribute` methods
2025-08-28Add new `doc(attribute = "...")` attributeGuillaume Gomez-9/+41
2025-08-27Port the `#[link]` attribute to the new parserJonathan Brouwer-3/+5
2025-08-26Rollup merge of #145892 - jdonszelmann:codegen-fn-attrs-foreign-item, r=bjorn3Samuel Tardieu-1/+1
add a flag to codegen fn attrs for foreign items r? `@ghost` refiled to rerun CI
2025-08-26add a flag to codegen fn attrs for foreign itemsJana Dönszelmann-1/+1
2025-08-25Use attribute name in message for "outer attr used as inner attr" errorsSasha Pourcelot-30/+39
2025-08-24Port crate name to the new attribute systemJana Dönszelmann-9/+37
2025-08-23port attribute to the new parsing infrastructureJana Dönszelmann-34/+40
2025-08-22Add an experimental unsafe(force_target_feature) attribute.Luca Versari-1/+1
This uses the feature gate for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143352, but is described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3820 which is strongly tied to the experiment.
2025-08-19Rollup merge of #145500 - JonathanBrouwer:must_use_target, r=jdonszelmann许杰友 Jieyou Xu (Joe)-39/+2
Port must_use to the new target checking This PR ports `must_use` to the new target checking logic This also adds a tool-only suggestion to remove attributes on invalid targets, as to not immediately undo the work of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145274 r? `@jdonszelmann`
2025-08-19Port `must_use` to the new target checkingJonathan Brouwer-39/+2
2025-08-19Rollup merge of #142681 - 1c3t3a:sanitize-off-on, r=rcvalleStuart Cook-29/+32
Remove the `#[no_sanitize]` attribute in favor of `#[sanitize(xyz = "on|off")]` This came up during the sanitizer stabilization (rust-lang/rust#123617). Instead of a `#[no_sanitize(xyz)]` attribute, we would like to have a `#[sanitize(xyz = "on|off")]` attribute, which is more powerful and allows to be extended in the future (instead of just focusing on turning sanitizers off). The implementation is done according to what was [discussed on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/343119-project-exploit-mitigations/topic/Stabilize.20the.20.60no_sanitize.60.20attribute/with/495377292)). The new attribute also works on modules, traits and impl items and thus enables usage as the following: ```rust #[sanitize(address = "off")] mod foo { fn unsanitized(..) {} #[sanitize(address = "on")] fn sanitized(..) {} } trait MyTrait { #[sanitize(address = "off")] fn unsanitized_default(..) {} } #[sanitize(thread = "off")] impl MyTrait for () { ... } ``` r? ```@rcvalle```
2025-08-18Remove the no_sanitize attribute in favor of sanitizeBastian Kersting-39/+0
This removes the #[no_sanitize] attribute, which was behind an unstable feature named no_sanitize. Instead, we introduce the sanitize attribute which is more powerful and allows to be extended in the future (instead of just focusing on turning sanitizers off). This also makes sanitize(kernel_address = ..) attribute work with -Zsanitize=address To do it the same as how clang disables address sanitizer, we now disable ASAN on sanitize(kernel_address = "off") and KASAN on sanitize(address = "off"). The same was added to clang in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44981.
2025-08-18Implement the #[sanitize(..)] attributeBastian Kersting-1/+43
This change implements the #[sanitize(..)] attribute, which opts to replace the currently unstable #[no_sanitize]. Essentially the new attribute works similar as #[no_sanitize], just with more flexible options regarding where it is applied. E.g. it is possible to turn a certain sanitizer either on or off: `#[sanitize(address = "on|off")]` This attribute now also applies to more places, e.g. it is possible to turn off a sanitizer for an entire module or impl block: ```rust \#[sanitize(address = "off")] mod foo { fn unsanitized(..) {} #[sanitize(address = "on")] fn sanitized(..) {} } \#[sanitize(thread = "off")] impl MyTrait for () { ... } ``` This attribute is enabled behind the unstable `sanitize` feature.
2025-08-15Port `#[custom_mir(..)]` to the new attribute systemSasha Pourcelot-4/+47
2025-08-14Remove the old target checking logicJonathan Brouwer-835/+108
2025-08-13Port the `#[linkage]` attribute to the new attribute systemSasha Pourcelot-3/+5
2025-08-13Rollup merge of #145274 - compiler-errors:unused-must-use, r=fmeaseJakub Beránek-1/+1
Remove unused `#[must_use]` Self-explanatory Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145257
2025-08-12Remove unused must_useMichael Goulet-1/+1
2025-08-12Auto merge of #144678 - jdonszelmann:no-mangle-extern, r=bjorn3bors-18/+18
Make no_mangle on foreign items explicit instead of implicit for a followup PR I'm working on I need some foreign items to mangle. I could add a new attribute: `no_no_mangle` or something silly like that but by explicitly putting `no_mangle` in the codegen fn attrs of foreign items we can default it to `no_mangle` and then easily remove it when we don't want it. I guess you'd know about this r? `@bjorn3.` Shouldn't be too hard to review :) Builds on rust-lang/rust#144655 which should merge first.
2025-08-12Rollup merge of #145251 - tiif:support_trait, r=BoxyUwUStuart Cook-2/+1
Support using #[unstable_feature_bound] on trait This is needed to unblock https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145095 r? ```````@BoxyUwU```````
2025-08-12Rollup merge of #145155 - scrabsha:push-tkvwkolzooyq, r=jdonszelmannStuart Cook-8/+41
Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system (attempt 2) This is a slightly modified version of ae1487aa9922de7642c448cc0908584026699e1c, which caused a performance regression (reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145086#issue-3303428759). The diff between this PR and the previous one can be seen in 027a1def. r? ```````@jdonszelmann``````` :sparkling_heart:
2025-08-12make no_mangle explicit on foreign itemsJana Dönszelmann-18/+18
2025-08-11Propagate TraitImplHeader to hirCameron Steffen-4/+3
2025-08-11Support using #[unstable_feature_bound] on traittiif-2/+1
2025-08-11Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system (attempt 2)Sasha Pourcelot-8/+41
2025-08-08Revert "Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system"Jana Dönszelmann-41/+8
This reverts commit 4f7a6ace9e2f2192af7b5d32f4b1664189e0e143.
2025-08-07Rollup merge of #144857 - scrabsha:push-pwtyrnmqkrtr, r=jdonszelmannTrevor Gross-8/+41
Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issue-2565886367. r? ````@jdonszelmann````
2025-08-07Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute systemSasha Pourcelot-8/+41
2025-08-07Rollup merge of #143808 - JonathanBrouwer:should_panic_parser, r=jdonszelmannStuart Cook-3/+2
Port `#[should_panic]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure Ports `#[should_panic]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issuecomment-2971351163 r? ```@jdonszelmann```
2025-08-06Port `#[should_panic]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructureJonathan Brouwer-3/+2
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <jonathantbrouwer@gmail.com>
2025-08-04Port `#[coroutine]` to the new attribute systemSasha Pourcelot-5/+5
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issue-2565886367.
2025-08-01Remove the omit_gdb_pretty_printer_section attributebjorn3-2/+1
Disabling loading of pretty printers in the debugger itself is more reliable. Before this commit the .gdb_debug_scripts section couldn't be included in dylibs or rlibs as otherwise there is no way to disable the section anymore without recompiling the entire standard library.
2025-07-31remove rustc_attr_data_structuresJana Dönszelmann-6/+4
2025-07-26Implement check_attrJonathan Brouwer-10/+17
2025-07-24Rollup merge of #143374 - cjgillot:bare-extern-crate-map, r=petrochenkovLeón Orell Valerian Liehr-1/+1
Unquerify extern_mod_stmt_cnum. Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143247 r? `````@ghost````` for perf
2025-07-23Ports `#[macro_use]` and `#[macro_escape]` to the new attribute parsing ↵Jonathan Brouwer-9/+8
infrastructure
2025-07-22Unquerify extern_mod_stmt_cnum.Camille GILLOT-1/+1
2025-07-22Rollup merge of #144080 - jieyouxu:realign, r=BoxyUwU许杰友 Jieyou Xu (Joe)-0/+1
Mitigate `#[align]` name resolution ambiguity regression with a rename Mitigates beta regression rust-lang/rust#143834 after a beta backport. ### Background on the beta regression The name resolution regression arises due to rust-lang/rust#142507 adding a new feature-gated built-in attribute named `#[align]`. However, unfortunately even [introducing new feature-gated unstable built-in attributes can break user code](https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134963) such as ```rs macro_rules! align { () => { /* .. */ }; } pub(crate) use align; // `use` here becomes ambiguous ``` ### Mitigation approach This PR renames `#[align]` to `#[rustc_align]` to mitigate the beta regression by: 1. Undoing the introduction of a new built-in attribute with a common name, i.e. `#[align]`. 2. Renaming `#[align]` to `#[rustc_align]`. The renamed attribute being `rustc_align` will not introduce new stable breakages, as attributes beginning with `rustc` are reserved and perma-unstable. This does mean existing nightly code using `fn_align` feature will additionally need to specify `#![feature(rustc_attrs)]`. This PR is very much a short-term mitigation to alleviate time pressure from having to fully fix the current limitation of inevitable name resolution regressions that would arise from adding any built-in attributes. Long-term solutions are discussed in [#t-lang > namespacing macro attrs to reduce conflicts with new adds](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/namespacing.20macro.20attrs.20to.20reduce.20conflicts.20with.20new.20adds/with/529249622). ### Alternative mitigation options [Various mitigation options were considered during the compiler triage meeting](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143834#issuecomment-3084415277), and those consideration are partly reproduced here: - Reverting the PR doesn't seem very minimal/trivial, and carries risks of its own. - Rename to a less-common but aim-to-stabilization name is itself not safe nor convenient, because (1) that risks introducing new regressions (i.e. ambiguity against the new name), and (2) lang would have to FCP the new name hastily for the mitigation to land timely and have a chance to be backported. This also makes the path towards stabilization annoying. - Rename the attribute to a rustc attribute, which will be perma-unstable and does not cause new ambiguities in stable code. - This alleviates the time pressure to address *this* regression, or for lang to have to rush an FCP for some new name that can still break user code. - This avoids backing out a whole implementation. ### Review advice This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit. - Commit 1 adds a test `tests/ui/attributes/fn-align-nameres-ambiguity-143834.rs` which demonstrates the current name resolution regression re. `align`. This test fails against current master. - Commit 2 carries out the renames and test reblesses. Notably, commit 2 will cause `tests/ui/attributes/fn-align-nameres-ambiguity-143834.rs` to change from fail (nameres regression) to pass. This PR, if the approach still seems acceptable, will need a beta-backport to address the beta regression.