-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
Port limit attributes to the new attribute parsing infrastructure #145819
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
fmease
is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@jdonszelmann #145792 is mostly ready so you can probably rebase now :3
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
835549e
to
995056a
Compare
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations
cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt
Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter
cc @rust-lang/miri
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 to the CTFE machinery
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
995056a
to
11da338
Compare
does conflict with #145937 but it's an easy rebase so we'll just see what merges first
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this doubled up error cannot be prevented. If we do, we'd get a similar situation as with crate_name where we either forget some cases, or delay as bug giving an ice when this literal happens to be a macro that before expansion is invalid but expanded is valid. e.g. concat!("100")
which before expansion is an expression we should reject but after expansion is a perfectly valid integer literal
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not doubled up? Your PR removes duplication looking at the diff. Am I missing something?
11da338
to
06599a5
Compare
I presume this fixes some of these reported ICEs: #145922? You don't need to add regression tests, not worth it I think.
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145958) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.
I think the ices are already mostly fixed because we don't delay bugs anymore for this specific case. So I think it's fixed without this pr but we'll want this anyway
06599a5
to
1de3926
Compare
This PR was rebased onto a different master 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.
@rustbot ready
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
r=me after nits
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, cool! You've (added &) set also_emit_lints
to true
for warning on e.g., duplicate #![crate_names]
, is that correct?
I've experimented a bit and noticed that printf '#![crate_name = "x"]#![crate_name="x"]' | rustc +master-2025年08月29日 - --print=crate-name
doesn't emit any warning on master. Does your change incidentally fix that? (It does emit during normal execution)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it doesn't fix cause here we never get to the point where we emit buffered lints I think hehe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
early lints are emitted and buffered but they never appear
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(preexisting) The This should be lower-case, https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/diagnostics.html#diagnostic-output-style-guide, can be fixed in a different PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oops, sorry. I'll open a PR today (ish)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, i opened #146080.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not doubled up? Your PR removes duplication looking at the diff. Am I missing something?
Doesn't pass tests, to be rebased on #145792 which will solve that
r? @fmease