Port #[cfg] and #[cfg_attr] trace attributes to the new attribute parsers

[JonathanBrouwer]

This PR converts cfg and cfg_trace attributes to the new parsed representation.

The primary challenge is that re-parsing these attributes in the HIR is a performance regression, since these attributes were only used in rustdoc and clippy parsing them in the HIR is extra work that was not done in the compiler before. To solve this, we only parse the attributes once and then store their parsed representation in the AST.

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ed1fb29 (ed1fb2931c0b2ef01da69d775ed80af9ece506fe, parent: 0bd13c38df9a9a922bd8ec98ba7a8bc7e111860e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ed1fb29): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, 0.7%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[1.2%, 1.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-2.4%, -0.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.2%, -0.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.4%, 0.8%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary 10.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.3%, 3.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	10.9%	[2.1%, 26.6%]	19
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.3%, 3.3%]	2

Binary size

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

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)	-0.4%	[-1.9%, -0.0%]	78
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.9%, -0.0%]	78

Bootstrap: 481.073s -> 480.532s (-0.11%)
Artifact size: 390.31 MiB -> 390.37 MiB (0.02%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ffa4b1c (ffa4b1ccb2fcb0f68df82b45ec17492d21980eaa, parent: c4aa646f15e40bd3e64ddb5017b7b89b3646ac99)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ffa4b1c): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.7%]	24

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary 0.6%)

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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.9%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.7%)

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)	2.7%	[2.0%, 3.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -0.2%)

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)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	94
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	32
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	94

Bootstrap: 483.398s -> 483.821s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 392.47 MiB -> 392.44 MiB (-0.01%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ed96494 (ed9649499f26613701cf867f0c5e196df9329855, parent: fabece9e9491d0a3c3655dba488881968b7c5f7a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ed96494): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.7%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.3%, secondary 1.4%)

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)	3.8%	[3.8%, 3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-2.0%, -0.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-2.0%, -0.9%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.4%)

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)	-3.4%	[-4.1%, -2.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary -0.2%)

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)	-0.5%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	48
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, -0.0%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	48

Bootstrap: 482.281s -> 485.842s (0.74%)
Artifact size: 392.44 MiB -> 392.50 MiB (0.01%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

r? @jdonszelmann
The performance is not perfect, but is clearly net positive.
Performance for rustdoc is very positive, performance for rustc is mildly positive.
The negative performance for incremental can be explained by #150400, which should be addressed by #143882

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs

cc @ZuseZ4

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs

cc @jdonszelmann

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

cc @jdonszelmann

[GuillaumeGomez]

Apart from my nit, changes look good, nice work! As discussed on zulip, if you're confident enough with only my review, then r=me, otherwise we can wait for @jdonszelmann to be back. :)

[jdonszelmann]

I'll try to do a review in the next day or two. If this is blocking a lot, then I apologize and feel free to merge

[JonathanBrouwer]

This is not blocking, we can wait for Jana, no hurry :)

[GuillaumeGomez]

I'll try to do a review in the next day or two. If this is blocking a lot, then I apologize and feel free to merge

No need to apologize, merge can wait for you. Enjoy you holidays. :)