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.
From `#[align]` -> `#[rustc_align]`. Attributes starting with `rustc`
are always perma-unstable and feature-gated by `feature(rustc_attrs)`.
See regression RUST-143834.
For the underlying problem where even introducing new feature-gated
unstable built-in attributes can break user code such as
```rs
macro_rules! align {
() => {
/* .. */
};
}
pub(crate) use align; // `use` here becomes ambiguous
```
refer to RUST-134963.
Since the `#[align]` attribute is still feature-gated by
`feature(fn_align)`, we can rename it as a mitigation. Note that
`#[rustc_align]` will obviously mean that current unstable user code
using `feature(fn_aling)` will need additionally `feature(rustc_attrs)`,
but this is a short-term mitigation to buy time, and is expected to be
changed to a better name with less collision potential.
See
<https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202025-07-17/near/529290371>
where mitigation options were considered.
Split-up stability_index query
This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries.
The basic idea is to:
- move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`;
- move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor;
- progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query.
The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour.
Perf in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143845#issuecomment-3066308630 shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression.
This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.
Split up the `unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes` lint
This splits up the lint into the following lint group:
- `unknown_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute is unknown to the current compiler
- `misplaced_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute exists but it is not placed on the item kind it's meant for
- `malformed_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute's syntax or options are invalid
- `malformed_diagnostic_format_literals` - triggers if the format string literal is invalid, for example if it has unpaired curly braces or invalid parameters
- this pr doesn't create it, but future lints for things like deprecations can also go here.
This PR does not start emitting lints in places that previously did not.
## Motivation
I want to have finer control over what `unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes` does
I have a project with fairly low msrv that is/will have a lower msrv than future diagnostic attributes. So lints will be emitted when I or others compile it on a lower msrv.
At this time, there are two options to silence these lints:
- `#[allow(unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes)]` - this risks diagnostic regressions if I (or others) mess up using the attribute, or if the attribute's syntax ever changes.
- write a build script to detect the compiler version and emit cfgs, and then conditionally enable the attribute:
```rust
#[cfg_attr(rust_version_99, diagnostic::new_attr_in_rust_99(thing = ..))]`
struct Foo;
```
or conditionally `allow` the lint:
```rust
// lib.rs
#![cfg_attr(not(current_rust), allow(unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes))]
```
I like to avoid using build scripts if I can, so the following works much better for me. That is what this PR will let me do in the future:
```rust
#[allow(unknown_diagnostic_attribute, reason = "attribute came out in rust 1.99 but msrv is 1.70")]
#[diagnostic::new_attr_in_rust_99(thing = ..)]`
struct Foo;
Port several linking (linkage?) related attributes the new attribute system
This ports:
- `#[export_stable]`
- `#[ffi_const]`
- `#[ffi_pure]`
- `#[rustc_std_internal_symbol]`
Part of rust-lang/rust#131229
r? ``@oli-obk``
`tests/ui`: A New Order [25/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@tgross35`
Rewrite `macro_rules!` parser to not use the MBE engine itself
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance, errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and "macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead. This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo (`@vincenzopalazzo)` and Eric Holk (`@eholk).`
For review, I recommend reading the two commits separately.
`tests/ui`: A New Order [13/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
`tests/ui`: A New Order [12/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
