Port #[crate_name] to the new attribute parsing infrastructure

[jdonszelmann]

r? @fmease

Closes #137687

[jdonszelmann]

@fmease and I decided to delay this PR for a bit until more diagnostic infra for attrs lands (hopefully next week) to make the duplicate error a warning to be consistent with current master.

[fmease]

r=fmease,bjorn3 once that PR lands and you can downgrade the error to a lint warning again.

@bors delegate+

[bors]

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

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

[wesleywiser]

Hi @jdonszelmann and @fmease, #137687 has reached beta so it would be great if we could resolve that via a beta-backport of this PR. Do you think it's possible to resolve the review feedback and merge this PR in the next week or so?

I can probably pitch in to help if necessary 🙂

[jdonszelmann]

Hi there. We wanted to delay this until attribute diagnostics. Something that should not be a lot of work but I have not worked as much on recently as I maybe should. I can't to this tomorrow, but likely next week. The pr has been reviewed but there was a bit of an issue around incremental, which I now know how to solve but just haven't yet. Is that a reasonable timeframe? I am pretty busy with organising rust week atm, but knowing the solution I guess the only important thing is that it gets quick reviews? Let me know how that sounds

[wesleywiser]

Just to clarify, will this PR then depend on the attribute diagnostics work? (Is that #138164?)

Generally, for backports, we try to keep the backport as small as possible so if this PR can be made to work independently of that PR (possibly even with a degraded diagnostics experience), that would be highly preferred.

[jdonszelmann]

No. We decided to delay this because it's relatively low prio and any nice and permanent solution for this depends on that. I'll make a temp fix that at least doesn't ice separately then, that sounds better for now. I don't mind doing it, I know the problem now and then I also know how to fix it permanently later. You'll hear from me

[theemathas]

Note that #137687 actually has two separate problems/subissues:

1. A problem (lower priority) involving the #[crate_name] attribute.
2. A problem (higher priority, found in a crater run) involving user-defined macro_rules and derive macros.

This PR only appears to address the first problem. The second problem would probably need to have a separate fix.

[jdonszelmann]

ok this is weird, I've copied just the tests over to master to fix it in a temporary way, but can no longer reporoduce the issue. Something else must have solved it in the meantime. Let me see what.

[jieyouxu]

(I know I've said this in the other PR too, but just in case)

Just a heads up: I split #137687 into two issues:

• ICE: expr in place where literal is expected (builtin attr parsing) #137687 is used to track Matthias's fuzzed regression (the #[crate_name = concat!("Cloneb")] one).
• regression: ICE: expr in place where literal is expected (builtin attr parsing) #140612 is used to track the crater regressions (known to affect user macros)

[fmease]

Amazing work, thank you!

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 9a7d66d has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jhpratt]

merge conflicts

@bors r-

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r=fmease

[bors]

📌 Commit 48a4e2d has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 48a4e2d with merge 93edf9f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fmease
Pushing 93edf9f to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 4eedad3 (parent) -> 93edf9f (this PR)

Test differences

Show 14 test diffs

Stage 1

• [ui] tests/ui/lint/unused/concat-in-crate-deprecated-issue-137687.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/unused/concat-in-crate-name-issue-137687.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Stage 2

• [ui] tests/ui/lint/unused/concat-in-crate-deprecated-issue-137687.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
• [ui] tests/ui/lint/unused/concat-in-crate-name-issue-137687.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Additionally, 10 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-llvm-19, x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
• J1: x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 93edf9f9b0bf284d8f8cbe52af5d0569d0cf5850 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-aarch64-linux: 6292.7s -> 9447.7s (50.1%)
2. pr-check-1: 1377.3s -> 1612.4s (17.1%)
3. i686-gnu-2: 5542.5s -> 6348.7s (14.5%)
4. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 3303.4s -> 3771.2s (14.2%)
5. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4523.6s -> 5090.9s (12.5%)
6. dist-apple-various: 4610.1s -> 4043.7s (-12.3%)
7. dist-aarch64-apple: 6558.8s -> 5792.5s (-11.7%)
8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19: 2518.5s -> 2800.5s (11.2%)
9. x86_64-gnu-stable: 6924.7s -> 7649.4s (10.5%)
10. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2590.4s -> 2855.4s (10.2%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[jdonszelmann]

yay, finally!

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (93edf9f): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.1%, secondary 1.9%)

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%, 3.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 4.3%)

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)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 467.477s -> 468.299s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 378.32 MiB -> 378.33 MiB (0.00%)