Hir attributes

[jdonszelmann]

This PR needs some explanation, it's somewhat large.

• This is step one as described in Attribute handling reworks compiler-team#796. I've added a new hir::Attribute which is a lowered version of ast::Attribute. Right now, this has few concrete effects, however every place that after this PR parses a hir::Attribute should later get a pre-parsed attribute as described in Attribute handling reworks compiler-team#796 and transitively Tracking issue: Attribute refactor #131229.
• an extension trait AttributeExt is added, which is implemented for both ast::Attribute and hir::Atribute. This makes hir::Attributes mostly compatible with code that used to parse ast::Attribute. All its methods are also added as inherent methods to avoid having to import the trait everywhere in the compiler.
  • Incremental can not not hash ast::Attribute at all.

[xFrednet]

The Clippy changes look good to me :D

=^.^=

[oli-obk]

@bors delegate+

r=me,petrochenkov once CI is happy

[bors]

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

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

[jieyouxu]

@bors p=10 (very very conflict-prone)
@bors rollup=never (significant attr handling changes)

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r=oli-obk,petrochenkov

[bors]

📌 Commit 1d5ec2c has been approved by oli-obk,petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1d5ec2c with merge 6add46f...

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1d5ec2c with merge f2b91cc...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk,petrochenkov
Pushing f2b91cc to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f2b91cc): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.1%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	20
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.4%, 1.1%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary -0.9%)

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)	1.1%	[0.7%, 1.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[1.8%, 3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-2.4%, -0.5%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-3.0%, -1.6%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.4%, 1.6%]	22

Cycles

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary 1.9%)

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)	1.4%	[0.6%, 2.8%]	23
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.1%, 2.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[0.6%, 2.8%]	23

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.4%)

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)	-0.2%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	75
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	75

Bootstrap: 770.348s -> 773.825s (0.45%)
Artifact size: 333.25 MiB -> 332.94 MiB (-0.09%)

[jieyouxu]

(Perf regression is real as we are doing more work, not sure how to claw perf back personally.)

[oli-obk]

Interestingly it's only a rustdoc regression. Maybe run cachegrind on one of them and see if it's sth obvious?

[jdonszelmann]

Zzzzz good morning, oh that's interesting, didn't expect that. I'll take a look today

[jieyouxu]

For wg-perf: #134376 seems to address the regression.

[Kobzol]

The regression was fixed in #134376.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged