[Project Goal, Help Wanted] Optimizing MSRV attribute collection #13169
Labels
E-medium
Call for participation: Medium difficulty level problem and requires some initial experience.
performance-project
For issues and PRs related to the Clippy Performance Project
Comments
blyxyas
added
E-medium
|
MSRV tracking will have to change anyway for incremental lints - they're run separately for each module so the current extraction mechanism wouldn't work Since I'll be changing it for that I can take a look at reducing the amount of attribute parsing going on too Early lints will probably stay the same for now at least |
Alexendoo
removed
the
E-help-wanted
|
Gonna remove help wanted until ^ is done, I'll make that the first thing I do though if someone wants to look at it further after that |
2 tasks
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2025
Closes #13169 Late lints now use a parent iter to check for `#[clippy::msrv]` attributes instead of keeping track with `extract_msrv_attr`. This is required for incremental lints since they run per module instead of per crate so don't visit all the necessary attributes As a basic optimisation if no `#[clippy::msrv]` attributes are discovered in early passes the HIR access is skipped completely and just the configured MSRV is used, for most code bases this will be the case changelog: none
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Currently, when knowing if the MSRV is high enough to run a lint, we're doing lots of repeated work.
We visit the same attributes a lot of times with the
extract_msrv_attr!(specifically, the number of lints that use MSRVs, so a good number of dozens).A possible solution to this would be precomputing the MSRV by
DefId, as there can be more than a singleclippy::msrvattribute on a single module.Additional resources:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: