Fix unused attributes on macro_rules.
The `unused_attributes` lint wasn't firing on attributes of `macro_rules` definitions. The consequence is that many attributes are silently ignored on `macro_rules`. The reason is that `unused_attributes` is a late-lint pass, and only has access to the HIR, which does not have macro_rules definitions.
My solution here is to change `non_exported_macro_attrs` to be `macro_attrs` (a list of all attributes used for `macro_rules`, instead of just those for `macro_export`), and then to check this list in the `unused_attributes` lint. There are a number of alternate approaches, but this seemed the most reliable and least invasive. I am open to completely different approaches, though.
One concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of extending `non_exported_macro_attrs` to include non-exported macros. That list was originally added in #62042 to handle stability attributes, so I suspect it was just an optimization since that was all that was needed. It was later extended to be included in SVH in #83901. #80641 also added a use to check for `invalid` attributes, which seems a little odd to me (it didn't validate non-exported macros, and seems highly specific).
Overall, there doesn't seem to be a clear story of when `unused_attributes` should be used versus an error like E0518. I considered alternatively using an "allow list" of built-in attributes that can be used on macro_rules (allow, warn, deny, forbid, cfg, cfg_attr, macro_export, deprecated, doc), but I feel like that could be a pain to maintain.
Some built-in attributes already present hard-errors when used with macro_rules. These are each hard-coded in various places:
- `derive`
- `test` and `bench`
- `proc_macro` and `proc_macro_derive`
- `inline`
- `global_allocator`
The primary motivation is that I sometimes see people use `#[macro_use]` in front of `macro_rules`, which indicates there is some confusion out there (evident that there was even a case of it in rustc).
This takes care of one "FIXME":
// FIXME: use direct symbol comparison for register class names
Instead of using string literals, this uses Symbol for register
class names.
Add asm register information for SPIR-V
As discussed in [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Defining.20asm!.20for.20new.20architecture), we at [rust-gpu](https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu) would like to support `asm!` for our SPIR-V backend. However, we cannot do so purely without frontend support: [this match](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_target/src/asm/mod.rs (L185)) fails and so `asm!` is not supported ([error reported here](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/expr.rs (L1095))). To resolve this, we need to stub out register information for SPIR-V to support getting the `asm!` content all the way to [`AsmBuilderMethods::codegen_inline_asm`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/traits/trait.AsmBuilderMethods.html#tymethod.codegen_inline_asm), at which point the rust-gpu backend can do all the parsing and codegen that is needed.
This is a pretty weird PR - adding support for a backend that isn't in-tree feels pretty gross to me, but I don't see an easy way around this. ``@Amanieu`` said I should submit it anyway, so, here we are! Let me know if this needs to go through a more formal process (MCP?) and what I should do to help this along.
I based this off the [wasm asm PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78684), which unfortunately this PR conflicts with that one quite a bit, sorry for any merge conflict pain :(
---
Some open questions:
- What do we call the register class? Some context, SPIR-V is an SSA-based IR, there are "instructions" that create IDs (referred to as `<id>` in the spec), which can be referenced by other instructions. So, `reg` isn't exactly accurate, they're SSA IDs, not re-assignable registers.
- What happens when a SPIR-V register gets to the LLVM backend? Right now it's a `bug!`, but should that be a `sess.fatal()`? I'm not sure if it's even possible to reach that point, maybe there's a check that prevents the `spirv` target from even reaching that codepath.
with an eye on merging `TargetOptions` into `Target`.
`TargetOptions` as a separate structure is mostly an implementation detail of `Target` construction, all its fields logically belong to `Target` and available from `Target` through `Deref` impls.
This patch also:
* Add soft-float supports: only f32
* zero-extend i8/i16 to i32 because MIPS only supports register-length
arithmetic.
* Update table in asm! chapter in unstable book.
