compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations (take 2)

[petrochenkov]

Compiletest currently accepts line annotations without kind in UI tests.

    let a = b + c; //~ my message

Such annotations have two effects.

• First, they match any compiler-produced diagnostic kind. This functionality is never used in practice, there are no target-dependent diagnostic kinds of something like that.
• Second, they are not "viral". For example, any explicit //~ NOTE my msg in a test requires all other NOTE diagnostics in the same test to be annotated. Implicit //~ my msg will just match the note and won't require other annotations.

The second functionality has a replacement since recently - directive //@ dont-require-annotations: NOTE.

This PR removes support for //~ my message and makes the explicit diagnostic kind mandatory.
Unwanted additional annotations are suppressed using the dont-require-annotations directive.

Closes rust-lang/compiler-team#862.
Previous attempt - #139427.
r? @jieyouxu

[petrochenkov]

MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#862, waiting on compiler team.

[petrochenkov]

Most of the diff is due to updated .stderr files.
Technically I could add the //@ dont-require-annotations: NOTE directives to file ends to avoid this, but it really goes against the usual style.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

[RalfJung]

const ui tets changes LGTM, except that the PR also removes some colons which caught me by surprise as it wasn't mentioned... but if we will unify the colon vs no-colon style soon anyway, it doesn't really matter.

[petrochenkov]

the PR also removes some colons which caught me by surprise as it wasn't mentioned

This is accidental, this PR was converted from #139427 which had some colon changes, and I tried to revert all of them, but apparently missed some. If some more are found during review I'll revert them too.

[tshepang]

would be nice if this also updated rustc-dev-guide

[petrochenkov]

would be nice if this also updated rustc-dev-guide

I'll update, I was waiting for #139618 to land first.

[petrochenkov]

10 days since rust-lang/compiler-team#862 (comment) have passed.
@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[rustbot]

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @jieyouxu, @Kobzol

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit e3504d1 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e3504d1 with merge cb45107...

[jieyouxu]

Right, some tests are gated behind certain availabilities.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit 20faf85 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 20faf85 with merge d2eadb7...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing d2eadb7 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 427288b (parent) -> d2eadb7 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard d2eadb7a94ef8c9deb5137695df33cd1fc5aee92 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-apple-2: 7602.6s -> 4664.8s (-38.6%)
2. x86_64-apple-1: 9212.6s -> 7030.9s (-23.7%)
3. dist-aarch64-apple: 5027.7s -> 5773.9s (14.8%)
4. dist-arm-linux: 4502.3s -> 5024.3s (11.6%)
5. dist-x86_64-mingw: 7935.5s -> 7438.1s (-6.3%)
6. x86_64-msvc-2: 6888.3s -> 7305.0s (6.0%)
7. dist-i686-mingw: 7827.2s -> 8246.0s (5.4%)
8. dist-apple-various: 6792.8s -> 6447.2s (-5.1%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3: 6700.5s -> 7016.3s (4.7%)
10. i686-msvc-1: 9310.8s -> 9714.7s (4.3%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d2eadb7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary -0.4%)

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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-6.3%, -0.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-6.3%, 1.1%]	25

Cycles

Results (primary 0.6%)

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)	1.0%	[0.5%, 2.5%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-0.5%, 2.5%]	7

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%)

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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 770.662s -> 770.233s (-0.06%)
Artifact size: 365.58 MiB -> 365.54 MiB (-0.01%)

[jieyouxu]

This doesn't touch compiler, should just be noise

[Kobzol]

Yeah, it's a new benchmark that doesn't have noise threshold set properly yet.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged