Port limit attributes to the new attribute parsing infrastructure

[jdonszelmann]

Doesn't pass tests, to be rebased on #145792 which will solve that

r? @fmease

[rustbot]

fmease is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[scrabsha]

@jdonszelmann #145792 is mostly ready so you can probably rebase now :3

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

[jdonszelmann]

does conflict with #145937 but it's an easy rebase so we'll just see what merges first

[jdonszelmann]

this doubled up error cannot be prevented. If we do, we'd get a similar situation as with crate_name where we either forget some cases, or delay as bug giving an ice when this literal happens to be a macro that before expansion is invalid but expanded is valid. e.g. concat!("100") which before expansion is an expression we should reject but after expansion is a perfectly valid integer literal

[fmease]

I presume this fixes some of these reported ICEs: #145922? You don't need to add regression tests, not worth it I think.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145958) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[jdonszelmann]

I think the ices are already mostly fixed because we don't delay bugs anymore for this specific case. So I think it's fixed without this pr but we'll want this anyway