Skip to content
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

Attribute cleanups #104861

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 1, 2022
Merged

Attribute cleanups #104861

merged 7 commits into from
Dec 1, 2022

Conversation

nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Best reviewed one commit at a time.

r? @petrochenkov

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 25, 2022
@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 25, 2022
@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 28, 2022
@bors

This comment was marked as resolved.

`check_builtin_attribute` calls `parse_meta` to convert an `Attribute`
to a `MetaItem`, which it then checks. However, many callers of
`check_builtin_attribute` start with a `MetaItem`, and then convert it
to an `Attribute` by calling `cx.attribute(meta_item)`. This `MetaItem`
to `Attribute` to `MetaItem` conversion is silly.

This commit adds a new function `check_builtin_meta_item`, which can be
called instead from these call sites. `check_builtin_attribute` also now
calls it. The commit also renames `check_meta` as `check_attr` to better
match its arguments.
I have found the distinction confusing.
So that `Attribute` and `MetaItem` are listed first, and then the
component types are below them in a logical order.
In `Expander::expand` the code currently uses `mk_attr_outer` to convert
a `MetaItem` to an `Attribute`, and then follows that with
`meta_item_list` which converts back. This commit avoids the unnecessary
conversions.

There was one wrinkle: the existing conversions caused the bogus `<>` on
`Default<>` to be removed. With the conversion gone, we get a second
error message about the `<>`. This is a rare case, so I think it
probably doesn't matter much.
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

I rebased.

This comment dates back to at least 2013, and is no longer relevant.
(There used to be an `allow` attribute, but that's no longer present.)
There is code for converting `Attribute` (syntactic) to `MetaItem`
(semantic). There is also code for the reverse direction. The reverse
direction isn't really necessary; it's currently only used when
generating attributes, e.g. in `derive` code.

This commit adds some new functions for creating `Attributes`s directly,
without involving `MetaItem`s: `mk_attr_word`, `mk_attr_name_value_str`,
`mk_attr_nested_word`, and
`ExtCtxt::attr_{word,name_value_str,nested_word}`.

These new methods replace the old functions for creating `Attribute`s:
`mk_attr_inner`, `mk_attr_outer`, and `ExtCtxt::attribute`. Those
functions took `MetaItem`s as input, and relied on many other functions
that created `MetaItems`, which are also removed: `mk_name_value_item`,
`mk_list_item`, `mk_word_item`, `mk_nested_word_item`,
`{MetaItem,MetaItemKind,NestedMetaItem}::token_trees`,
`MetaItemKind::attr_args`, `MetaItemLit::{from_lit_kind,to_token}`,
`ExtCtxt::meta_word`.

Overall this cuts more than 100 lines of code and makes thing simpler.
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

And now I added three new commits.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

The last commit is something I also wanted to do, there's no need to go through meta-items when generating AST output from built-in macros.
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 29, 2022

📌 Commit ba1751a has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 29, 2022
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't think this will affect perf, but the queue is long so there is time to check.

@bors r-

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 29, 2022
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 29, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 29, 2022

⌛ Trying commit ba1751a with merge a42da13bfac2206c0dd77e74950e6fb81f473449...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 30, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a42da13bfac2206c0dd77e74950e6fb81f473449 (a42da13bfac2206c0dd77e74950e6fb81f473449)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a42da13bfac2206c0dd77e74950e6fb81f473449): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-0.9%, -0.5%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.4% [2.1%, 2.7%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Nov 30, 2022
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+ rollup=maybe

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 30, 2022

📌 Commit ba1751a has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 30, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 1, 2022

⌛ Testing commit ba1751a with merge d6c4de0...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 1, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing d6c4de0 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 1, 2022
@bors bors merged commit d6c4de0 into rust-lang:master Dec 1, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.67.0 milestone Dec 1, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d6c4de0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-0.9%, -0.5%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-0.2%, -0.1%] 3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.0% [-1.0%, -1.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.5% [-1.5%, -1.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

@nnethercote nnethercote deleted the attr-cleanups branch December 1, 2022 21:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants