Also warn if an invalid doc attribute is used on a macro invocation - #161003
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intoAug 13, 2026
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
mejrs
approved these changes
Aug 12, 2026
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r? me
so when we reach rustc_attr_parsing, the attribute is not present and there won't trigger an error. I don't think it's worth changing this logic but in case someone things otherwise, it's mentioned. :)
that's implemented in #160904, which does this (sort of) and also like three other things 🙈
I think this is a good step to merge first, makes ^ a bit simpler.
@bors r+ rollup
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Member
Author
|
@mejrs Nicely done! |
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 12, 2026
…c, r=mejrs Also warn if an invalid `doc` attribute is used on a macro invocation Fixes rust-lang#160880. So about this: I think the error message is good enough, but I can specialize it in case it's not a doc comment but a doc attribute. Also: currently the ignored attributes are not kept in the AST, so when we reach `rustc_attr_parsing`, the attribute is not present and there won't trigger an error. I don't think it's worth changing this logic but in case someone thinks otherwise, it's mentioned. :) r? @JonathanBrouwer
Member
|
Also just a note - I don't think this fixes #160880. I think we should FCW on that and later try a crater run and see if we can get away with erroring on it again. |
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2026
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #160976 (Ensure TLS accesses don't call the global allocator through panic (part 2)) - #160438 ([rustdoc] Change table odd table rows background color to not make it the same as inline code) - #160985 (self-profile more of borrowck) - #137858 (Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint) - #159566 (Add support for generics in `offload`and remove `no_mangle` attribute) - #160676 (rustc_public: split `def`s out of `ty`) - #160861 (rustc_parse: suggest removing semicolon before `if` block) - #160958 (Remove unused `#[non_exhaustive]` in library) - #160978 (move resolve_path to Session inherent method) - #160990 (Remove old cfg parser which is now dead code) - #160991 (Add offload component on nightly) - #160999 (doc changes to expect messages in process.rs) - #161003 (Also warn if an invalid `doc` attribute is used on a macro invocation)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2026
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #160976 (Ensure TLS accesses don't call the global allocator through panic (part 2)) - #160438 ([rustdoc] Change table odd table rows background color to not make it the same as inline code) - #160985 (self-profile more of borrowck) - #137858 (Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint) - #159566 (Add support for generics in `offload`and remove `no_mangle` attribute) - #160676 (rustc_public: split `def`s out of `ty`) - #160861 (rustc_parse: suggest removing semicolon before `if` block) - #160958 (Remove unused `#[non_exhaustive]` in library) - #160978 (move resolve_path to Session inherent method) - #160990 (Remove old cfg parser which is now dead code) - #160991 (Add offload component on nightly) - #160999 (doc changes to expect messages in process.rs) - #161003 (Also warn if an invalid `doc` attribute is used on a macro invocation)
Member
Author
|
Replaced it with "part of" then. |
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2026
Rollup merge of #161003 - GuillaumeGomez:doc-attr-macro-invoc, r=mejrs Also warn if an invalid `doc` attribute is used on a macro invocation Fixes #160880. So about this: I think the error message is good enough, but I can specialize it in case it's not a doc comment but a doc attribute. Also: currently the ignored attributes are not kept in the AST, so when we reach `rustc_attr_parsing`, the attribute is not present and there won't trigger an error. I don't think it's worth changing this logic but in case someone thinks otherwise, it's mentioned. :) r? @JonathanBrouwer
Collaborator
|
Finished benchmarking commit (d80b7f1): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up. @rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression Instruction countThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. CyclesResults (primary -1.5%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 455.642s -> 454.976s (-0.15%) |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 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.
Part of #160880.
So about this: I think the error message is good enough, but I can specialize it in case it's not a doc comment but a doc attribute.
Also: currently the ignored attributes are not kept in the AST, so when we reach
rustc_attr_parsing, the attribute is not present and there won't trigger an error. I don't think it's worth changing this logic but in case someone thinks otherwise, it's mentioned. :)r? @JonathanBrouwer