Use edition of macro_rules when compiling the macro

[ehuss]

This changes the edition assigned to a macro_rules macro when it is compiled to use the edition of where the macro came from instead of the local crate's edition.

This fixes a problem when a macro_rules macro is created by a proc-macro. Previously that macro would be tagged with the local edition, which would cause problems with using the correct edition behavior inside the macro. For example, the check for unsafe attributes would cause errors in 2024 when using proc-macros from older editions.

This is partially related to #132906. Unfortunately this is only a half fix for that issue. It fixes the error that happens in 2024, but does not fix the lint firing in 2021. I'm still trying to think of some way to fix that, but I'm running low on ideas.

[rustbot]

r? @compiler-errors

rustbot has assigned @compiler-errors.
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

[compiler-errors]

Do you expect this to have any effect on preexisting code? In that case, should we crater this change?

[petrochenkov]

It would be better to run crater on this.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 993e084 with merge 9a6ce9b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9a6ce9b (9a6ce9bcee4fff9f2010ea88aaa7654cc4d95132)

[compiler-errors]

@craterbot check p=10

[craterbot]

👌 Experiment pr-133274 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build 9a6ce9b
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[compiler-errors]

@rust-timer build 9a6ce9b

[craterbot]

🚧 Experiment pr-133274 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[compiler-errors]

Actually why did I start rust-timer on this? Anyways, ignore that.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9a6ce9b): 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)

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

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

Bootstrap: 795.947s -> 794.767s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 336.01 MiB -> 336.00 MiB (-0.00%)

[craterbot]

🎉 Experiment pr-133274 is completed!
📊 15 regressed and 4 fixed (541620 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the blacklist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[compiler-errors]

From a cursory glance, looks like they're all just spurious crater failures. It does not seem like any of these crates are affected by this change.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never (for bisection, just in case)

[bors]

📌 Commit 993e084 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 993e084 with merge 83965ef...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 83965ef to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (83965ef): 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)

Results (primary -3.5%, secondary -2.9%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 793.27s -> 793.555s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 336.19 MiB -> 336.20 MiB (0.00%)

[apiraino]

This caused a regression in #135669. T-lang decided to keep this behaviour, at least for now (comment). For this reason I'm adding this to be mentioned in the next releases notes (hoping it's the correct procedure):

@rustbot label +relnotes