Re-introduce attribute rewrite #20892
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Basically, we switch to expanding cfg_attr in AST form, filter irrelevant attributes from the item tree, and move hir-def attributes (non-item-tree) to be flag-based. The main motivation is memory usage, although this also simplifies the code, and fixes some bugs around handling of `cfg_attr`s.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
See the comment in the code. Previously it wasn't present because we were'nt stripping derives appearing before attribute macros, so we kept the derive and therefore the helper resolved as well. But we should strip the derives, as rustc does.
…value` attr It caused the attribute macro to not be removed, causing it to be expanded again and again. I don't know how to test this, as it's hard to test that the recursion limit was reached.
ChayimFriedman2
force-pushed
the
better-attrs
branch
from
69a8e50 to
bf0d974
Compare
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
And instead call `EditionedFileId::current_edition_guess_origin`, as most callers do it anyway.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
ChayimFriedman2
force-pushed
the
better-attrs
branch
from
52d048a to
b8b33ca
Compare
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Weird, I now see on the metrics page that this regresses time and memory considerably. Don't merge this until I investigate that. |
Veykril
reviewed
Oct 30, 2025
Comment on lines
+225
to
+236
| .or_else(|| db.all_crates().first().copied()) | ||
| .unwrap_or_else(|| { | ||
| // What we're doing here is a bit fishy. We rely on the fact that we only need | ||
| // the crate in the item tree, and we should not create an `EditionedFileId` | ||
| // without a crate except in cases where it does not matter. The chances that | ||
| // `all_crates()` will be empty are also very slim, but it can occur during startup. | ||
| // In the very unlikely case that there is a bug and we'll use this crate, Salsa | ||
| // will panic. | ||
|
|
||
| // SAFETY: 0 is less than `Id::MAX_U32`. | ||
| salsa::plumbing::FromId::from_id(unsafe { salsa::Id::from_index(0) }) | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need that previous change (making the function non-optional). Not too fond of this hack, this might populate queries that aren't necessary if this value makes it through. I am also not too happy with the sheer amount of hacks we are slowly accumulating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by "making the function non-optional"?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The first commit remains unchanged. Only the second and third commits need review.
I verified that metrics do not regress anymore, and that r-a is usable in the editor.