Removing absolute path in proc-macro

[sundeep-kokkonda]

With rust 1.75 the absolute build path is embedding into '.rustc' section and which causes reproducibility issues. Detailed issue is here. #120825 (comment)

With this change the 'absolute path' changed back to '/rust/$hash' format.

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @TaKO8Ki (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[Urgau]

Well I guess this answer the ambiguity in RFC 3127 trim-paths about what to do with proc-macros.

However, I don't think this is the right fix, this would now always remap paths and not take into account -Zremap-path-scope, we should instead remove the loop.

-        // bail out, if any of the requested crate types aren't:
-        // "compiled executables or libraries"
-        for crate_type in &self.opts.crate_types {
-            match crate_type {
-                CrateType::Executable
-                | CrateType::Dylib
-                | CrateType::Rlib
-                | CrateType::Staticlib
-                | CrateType::Cdylib => continue,
-                CrateType::ProcMacro => return false,
-            }
-        }

---

Btw, this PR title is a bit misleading, it's about all paths in a proc-macro not just .rustc.

[sundeep-kokkonda]

I changed 'PR' subject, and tried a build by removing the 'loop' and build is success. Will you pull this change / I should do anything else?

[Urgau]

Great.

Will you pull this change / I should do anything else?

Just push a new commit removing the loop.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #122111) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[TaKO8Ki]

@sundeep-kokkonda Sorry for the late review. Could you resolve a conflict? After that, r=me

[sundeep-kokkonda]

@sundeep-kokkonda Sorry for the late review. Could you resolve a conflict? After that, r=me

I can see my changes are merged with #121959 . This is old commit before review corrections.

[workingjubilee]

@sundeep-kokkonda Not sure where things stand here based on your remark. Could you rebase this if it needs to be rebased, or close it if it needs to be closed? Thanks!