Do not suggest using -Zmacro-backtrace for builtin macros

[estebank]

For macros that are implemented on the compiler, or that are annotated with rustc_diagnostic_item, which have arbitrary implementations from the point of view of the user and might as well be intrinsics, we do not mention the -Zmacro-backtrace flag. This includes derives and standard macros like panic! and format!.

This PR adds a field to every Span's ExpnData stating whether it comes from a builtin macro. This is determined by the macro being annotated with either #[rustc_builtin_macro] or #[rustc_diagnostic_item]. An alternative to using these attributes that already exist for other uses would be to introduce another attribute like #[rustc_no_backtrace] to have finer control on which macros are affected (for example, an error within vec![] now doesn't mention the backtrace, but one could make the case that it should). Ideally, instead of carrying this information in the ExpnData we'd instead try to query the DefId of the macro (that is already stored) to see if it is annotated in some way, but we do not have access to the TyCtxt from rustc_errors.

r? @petrochenkov

[rustbot]

This PR modifies run-make tests.

cc @jieyouxu

[estebank]

This is similar to #106526 where you stated "I disagree with adding this kind of hacks to macro expansion infra, this PR does more harm than good." without clarification on whether the concern is with modifying ExpnData to carry this information, or with the hardcoded list that the earlier PR had.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit aaff81e with merge f3fd6c6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f3fd6c6 (f3fd6c6e54616979f79b504602b55b06e0d96e0e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f3fd6c6): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.7%	[-4.7%, -4.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-4.7%, 1.4%]	2

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	65
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	37
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	65

Bootstrap: 779.667s -> 779.217s (-0.06%)
Artifact size: 365.24 MiB -> 365.26 MiB (0.01%)

[petrochenkov]

I'm fine with doing this for compiler-implemented macros with no actual source code, we already have a flag for those - SyntaxExtension::builtin_name.

I still disagree with doing this for standard library macros though.
They are not a part of "just my code" for sure, but that's no different from any other third party macros, and we shouldn't invent any hacks to specifically recognize them.
-Zmacro-backtrace on them still shows additional details, still maybe be useful if you are interested in them, and is still worth recommending.

There can be some system for hiding the details, similar to #[collapse_debuginfo], but I don't think it is worth it in this case.

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[estebank]

Made it so that we only hide the note when it comes from an intrinsic.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f0b8e13 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f0b8e13 with merge adea7cb...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing adea7cb to master...

[github-actions]

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report. You can ignore it.

Post-merge report

Comparing 2828650 (base) -> adea7cb (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (adea7cb): 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)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	65
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	37
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	65

Bootstrap: 772.05s -> 773.052s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.07 MiB -> 365.08 MiB (0.00%)

[RalfJung]

It seems like the PR description does not reflect the fact that the PR changed course before being landed? Or maybe I just entirely misunderstood.