Port #[rustc_dummy]

[mejrs]

r? @jdonszelmann

[rustbot]

jdonszelmann is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_data_structures

cc @jdonszelmann

[jdonszelmann]

Needs a little bit of work. If you're using the attr in an invalid position it'll be checked twice now (take a look at the other prs how they solve this)

[jdonszelmann]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[GrigorenkoPV]

Needs a little bit of work. If you're using the attr in an invalid position it'll be checked twice now (take a look at the other prs how they solve this)

In compiler/rustc_parse/src/validate_attr.rs, in check_builtin_meta_item you need to add sym::rustc_dummy to the giant match pattern. I'm not aware if anything else is needed.

And, as a personal request, could you please add it not next to inline, may_dangle, rustc_pass_by_value, or repr — it would help with avoiding conflicts with #143402 & #143403.

[mejrs]

you need to add sym::rustc_dummy to the giant match pattern. I'm not aware if anything else is needed.

I don't, actually. That pattern is unreachable, because check_builtin_meta_item is never called for rustc_dummy.

[jdonszelmann]

I see

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 429deed has been approved by jdonszelmann

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build 8867650

Testing tiny regression in #143645.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8867650): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking 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
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 1.8%)

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)	3.8%	[3.3%, 4.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 8.4%, 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)	8.4%	[3.3%, 11.5%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.4%, 3.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	8.4%	[3.3%, 11.5%]	8

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 466.242s -> 466.725s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 372.32 MiB -> 372.32 MiB (-0.00%)