parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser by mejrs · Pull Request #164648 · rust-lang/rust

mejrs · 2026-10-20T16:38:38Z

It's an error to have #[inline]#[rustc_force_inline]fn blah(){}, but they both lower to the same InlineAttr, so this would error and then have an attribute list of multiple inline attrs, which breaks the invariant that a list of attributes has no duplicate variants

rustbot · 2026-10-20T16:38:42Z

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

rustbot · 2026-10-20T16:38:45Z

r? @jackh726

rustbot has assigned @jackh726.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
compiler expanded to 77 candidates
Random selection from 19 candidates

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-25T18:32:30Z

r? me

JonathanBrouwer

which breaks the invariant that a list of attributes has no duplicate variants

I'm leaning towards that that's fine, since one of the attributes is rustc internal and the broken invariant is not really observable. Imo this change makes the code less readable. What is the concrete advantage of this change?

Another approach would be replacing rustc_inline_force with #[inline(rustc_force)] or similar, then we can have only one attribute.

View changes since this review

mejrs · 2026-10-26T11:43:50Z

I wanted to add a (debug) assertion to check for no duplicates (except doc comments) in #164260, but hit it for a rustc_force_inline test instead.

Another approach would be replacing rustc_inline_force with #[inline(rustc_force)] or similar, then we can have only one attribute.

The downside of having #[inline(rustc_force)] (or #[inline(force)]) is that this sort of looks like it's on a path towards stabilization, which IIRC it is very much not.

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-10-26T11:55:34Z

I wanted to add a (debug) assertion to check for no duplicates (except doc comments) in #164260, but hit it for a rustc_force_inline test instead.

Another way would be to also add a similar exception for inline, or to make it a delayed bug such that it is allowed when there are errors.

The downside of having #[inline(rustc_force)] (or #[inline(force)]) is that this sort of looks like it's on a path towards stabilization, which IIRC it is very much not.

Yeah I proposed rustc_force specifically so it would be clear that it's internal. Feel free to suggest another name that makes this even clearer.

mejrs · 2026-10-26T14:47:42Z

Another way would be to also add a similar exception for inline, or to make it a delayed bug such that it is allowed when there are errors.

Or we could just fix the attribute? 🤷

In any case, I don't think folding it into the inline attribute would significantly clean this up.

It's an error to have `#[inline]#[rustc_force_inline]fn blah(){}`, but they both lower to the same `InlineAttr`, so this would error and then have an attribute list of multiple inline attrs

rustbot · 2026-10-26T22:22:33Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main 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.

JonathanBrouwer

In any case, I don't think folding it into the inline attribute would significantly clean this up.

This PR has to do manual target and duplication, which the single attribute would not have to do.

Or we could just fix the attribute? 🤷

Sure, I'm relatively neutral on whether this change is an improvement, and you seem to really like it, so let's do it.
Do we also want to combine all DocAttrs to make the check fully consistent?

@bors r+ rollup

View changes since this review

rust-bors · 2026-10-27T13:33:22Z

📌 Commit b749d20 has been approved by JonathanBrouwer

It is now in the queue for this repository.

…uwer parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser It's an error to have `#[inline]#[rustc_force_inline]fn blah(){}`, but they both lower to the same `InlineAttr`, so this would error and then have an attribute list of multiple inline attrs, which breaks the invariant that a list of attributes has no duplicate variants

…uwer Rollup of 22 pull requests Successful merges: - #159580 (Reject cfg on expressions that cannot be safely removed) - #162597 (raise ambiguity error on attribute macro that could be tool attribute) - #162808 (Enable `--generate-link-to-definition` rustdoc option on std docs) - #163059 (Recover invalid return type until `{`, `}` or `;`) - #163672 (Use runCodeGen Abstraction for new LLVM) - #164028 (Add a future incompat warning for #[no_link]) - #164188 (Suggest adding lifetime for `dyn Trait` in return type) - #164345 (fix: handle `false` in root contexts) - #164494 (drop ands which are a superset of other ands) - #164766 (Unstably introduce MVP edition migration lint `unmarked_unchecked_type_aliases` together with bikeshed attribute `#[rustc_unchecked_type_alias]`) - #164785 (delegation: emit error when there is no field for `Self` mapping) - #164799 (Don't use `IntoIterator` in parallel API) - #164871 (Refactor call argument codegen) - #164648 (parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser) - #164811 (fix: Prevent ICE when comparing EII impl against generic declaration) - #164900 (make tool_attrs method to retrieve tool attributes.) - #164993 (copy_nonoverlapping: dont skip ovelrap check when src is fully uninit) - #164996 (miri: add missing alignment check in write_bytes) - #165012 (Remove Span::eq_ctxt()) - #165013 ([tiny] Add missing backticks around lifetime name) - #165024 (rustdoc-search: rank re-export lower) - #165028 (Update enzyme to fix one bug related to higher-order derivatives) > [!WARNING] > This rollup conflicts with pending auto build #165042 and may need to be recreated if the pending build succeeds.

…uwer Rollup of 21 pull requests Successful merges: - #159580 (Reject cfg on expressions that cannot be safely removed) - #162597 (raise ambiguity error on attribute macro that could be tool attribute) - #162808 (Enable `--generate-link-to-definition` rustdoc option on std docs) - #163059 (Recover invalid return type until `{`, `}` or `;`) - #163672 (Use runCodeGen Abstraction for new LLVM) - #164028 (Add a future incompat warning for #[no_link]) - #164188 (Suggest adding lifetime for `dyn Trait` in return type) - #164345 (fix: handle `false` in root contexts) - #164494 (drop ands which are a superset of other ands) - #164785 (delegation: emit error when there is no field for `Self` mapping) - #164799 (Don't use `IntoIterator` in parallel API) - #164871 (Refactor call argument codegen) - #164648 (parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser) - #164811 (fix: Prevent ICE when comparing EII impl against generic declaration) - #164900 (make tool_attrs method to retrieve tool attributes.) - #164993 (copy_nonoverlapping: dont skip ovelrap check when src is fully uninit) - #164996 (miri: add missing alignment check in write_bytes) - #165012 (Remove Span::eq_ctxt()) - #165013 ([tiny] Add missing backticks around lifetime name) - #165024 (rustdoc-search: rank re-export lower) - #165028 (Update enzyme to fix one bug related to higher-order derivatives)

Rollup merge of #164648 - mejrs:inline_parser, r=JonathanBrouwer parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser It's an error to have `#[inline]#[rustc_force_inline]fn blah(){}`, but they both lower to the same `InlineAttr`, so this would error and then have an attribute list of multiple inline attrs, which breaks the invariant that a list of attributes has no duplicate variants

…uwer Rollup of 21 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#159580 (Reject cfg on expressions that cannot be safely removed) - rust-lang/rust#162597 (raise ambiguity error on attribute macro that could be tool attribute) - rust-lang/rust#162808 (Enable `--generate-link-to-definition` rustdoc option on std docs) - rust-lang/rust#163059 (Recover invalid return type until `{`, `}` or `;`) - rust-lang/rust#163672 (Use runCodeGen Abstraction for new LLVM) - rust-lang/rust#164028 (Add a future incompat warning for #[no_link]) - rust-lang/rust#164188 (Suggest adding lifetime for `dyn Trait` in return type) - rust-lang/rust#164345 (fix: handle `false` in root contexts) - rust-lang/rust#164494 (drop ands which are a superset of other ands) - rust-lang/rust#164785 (delegation: emit error when there is no field for `Self` mapping) - rust-lang/rust#164799 (Don't use `IntoIterator` in parallel API) - rust-lang/rust#164871 (Refactor call argument codegen) - rust-lang/rust#164648 (parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser) - rust-lang/rust#164811 (fix: Prevent ICE when comparing EII impl against generic declaration) - rust-lang/rust#164900 (make tool_attrs method to retrieve tool attributes.) - rust-lang/rust#164993 (copy_nonoverlapping: dont skip ovelrap check when src is fully uninit) - rust-lang/rust#164996 (miri: add missing alignment check in write_bytes) - rust-lang/rust#165012 (Remove Span::eq_ctxt()) - rust-lang/rust#165013 ([tiny] Add missing backticks around lifetime name) - rust-lang/rust#165024 (rustdoc-search: rank re-export lower) - rust-lang/rust#165028 (Update enzyme to fix one bug related to higher-order derivatives)

rustbot added A-attributes Area: Attributes (`#[…]`, `#![…]`) S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 20, 2026

rustbot assigned jackh726 Oct 20, 2026

rustbot assigned JonathanBrouwer and unassigned jackh726 Oct 25, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

JonathanBrouwer requested changes Oct 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 26, 2026

parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser

b749d20

It's an error to have `#[inline]#[rustc_force_inline]fn blah(){}`, but they both lower to the same `InlineAttr`, so this would error and then have an attribute list of multiple inline attrs

mejrs force-pushed the inline_parser branch from 9a43929 to b749d20 Compare October 26, 2026 22:22

JonathanBrouwer approved these changes Oct 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Oct 27, 2026

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2026

Rollup of 24 pull requests #165038

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2026

Rollup of 22 pull requests #165051

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2026

Rollup of 21 pull requests #165056

Merged

rust-bors Bot merged commit 1641941 into rust-lang:main Oct 28, 2026
14 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.101.0 milestone Oct 28, 2026

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser - #164648

parse inline and rustc_force_inline with same parser#164648
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
mejrs:inline_parser

mejrs commented Oct 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 20, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 20, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

Uh oh!

mejrs commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

mejrs commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

mejrs commented Oct 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 20, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 20, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

JonathanBrouwer left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mejrs commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

mejrs commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 26, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

mejrs commented Oct 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

JonathanBrouwer left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading