9d0eaa2ad7
PR #128581 introduced an assertion that all builtin attributes are actually checked via `CheckAttrVisitor` and aren't accidentally usable on completely unrelated HIR nodes. Unfortunately, the check had correctness problems. The match on attribute path segments looked like ```rust,ignore [sym::should_panic] => /* check is implemented */ match BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTE_MAP.get(name) { // checked below Some(BuiltinAttribute { type_: AttributeType::CrateLevel, .. }) => {} Some(_) => { if !name.as_str().starts_with("rustc_") { span_bug!( attr.span, "builtin attribute {name:?} not handled by `CheckAttrVisitor`" ) } } None => (), } ``` However, it failed to account for edge cases such as an attribute whose: 1. path segments *starts* with a builtin attribute such as `should_panic` 2. which does not start with `rustc_`, and 3. is also an `AttributeType::Normal` attribute upon registration with the builtin attribute map These conditions when all satisfied cause the span bug to be issued for e.g. `#[should_panic::skip]` because the `[sym::should_panic]` arm is not matched (since it's `[sym::should_panic, sym::skip]`). See <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128622>. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| messages.ftl | ||