Port #[allow_internal_unsafe] to the new attribute system

[scrabsha]

Related to #131229 (comment).

r? @jdonszelmann

[rustbot]

jdonszelmann is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

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

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs

cc @jdonszelmann

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r+ rollup

[jdonszelmann]

I didn't know this function existed

[bors]

📌 Commit 0404952 has been approved by jdonszelmann

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r-

[jdonszelmann]

oops, conflicts

[jdonszelmann]

@bors delegate+ r=me after a rebase

[bors]

✌️ @scrabsha, you can now approve this pull request!

If @jdonszelmann told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@jdonszelmann

[scrabsha]

@bors r=@jdonszelmann

[bors]

📌 Commit 4f7a6ac has been approved by jdonszelmann

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build ae1487a

Testing for regression in #145074.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ae1487a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	0.8%	[0.1%, 4.3%]	128
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 1.5%]	42
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-2.9%, -0.0%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 4.3%]	128

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	1.2%	[1.0%, 1.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.5%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.2s -> 465.365s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 377.41 MiB -> 377.49 MiB (0.02%)

[Kobzol]

@lqd Congratz, you won virtual money!

The regression looks quite bad. @jdonszelmann Maybe we should pre-emptively revert this? Or do you expect this to get resolved soon-ish?

[jdonszelmann]

yes let's revert for now, but some day I do want to land this... But let's not experiment with what's wrong on master. I have a feeling that @JonathanBrouwer 's new parser might help, since it removes a point of validation.

[jdonszelmann]

revert: #145086