This feature was stabilized, so the FormatArgs lints should check if the MSRV of
the stabilization is met, rather than checking if the feature is enabled.
For some reason, the `todo!` and `unimplemented!` macros were not
included in the list of format-supporting macros list. Since they seem
to behave exactly the same as all others like `write!` and `assert!`,
adding them now.
I wonder if we should delete the `FORMAT_MACRO_DIAG_ITEMS`, and instead
tag all macros with the `#[clippy::format_args]`?
changelog: all format-handling lints will now validate `todo!` and
`unimplemented!` macros.
- The name of an MSRV alias should describe its functionality, and it is
not appropriate for it to be the same as the name of the lint that uses
it.
- Additionally, while `manual_div_ceil` allows setting MSRV, this is not
correctly reflected in the configuration information.
changelog: none
Simplify `Postorder` customization.
`Postorder` has a `C: Customization<'tcx>` parameter, that gives it flexibility about how it computes successors. But in practice, there are only two `impls` of `Customization`, and one is for the unit type.
This commit simplifies things by removing the generic parameter and replacing it with an `Option`.
r? ````@saethlin````
For some reason, the `todo!` and `unimplemented!` macros were not included in the list of format-supporting macros list. Since they seem to behave exactly the same as all others like `write!` and `assert!`, adding them now.
`Postorder` has a `C: Customization<'tcx>` parameter, that gives it
flexibility about how it computes successors. But in practice, there are
only two `impls` of `Customization`, and one is for the unit type.
This commit simplifies things by removing the generic parameter and
replacing it with an `Option`.
Lint `#[must_use]` attributes applied to methods in trait impls
The `#[must_use]` attribute has no effect when applied to methods in trait implementations. This PR adds it to the unused `#[must_use]` lint, and cleans the extra attributes in portable-simd and Clippy.
In the case where `iter` is a `DoubleEndedIterator`, replacing a call to
`iter.last()` (which consumes `iter`) by `iter.next_back()` (which
requires a mutable reference to `iter`) cannot be done when `iter` is a
non-mutable binding which is not a mutable reference. When possible, a
local immutable binding is made into a mutable one.
Also, the applicability is switched to `MaybeIncorrect` and a note is
added to the output when the element types have a significant drop,
because the drop order will potentially be modified because
`.next_back()` does not consume the iterator nor the elements before the
last one.
Fix#14139
changelog: [`double_ended_iterator_last`]: do not trigger on
non-reference immutable receiver, and warn about possible drop order
change
Continuing the work started in #136466.
Every method gains a `hir_` prefix, though for the ones that already
have a `par_` or `try_par_` prefix I added the `hir_` after that.
First of all, note that `Map` has three different relevant meanings.
- The `intravisit::Map` trait.
- The `map::Map` struct.
- The `NestedFilter::Map` associated type.
The `intravisit::Map` trait is impl'd twice.
- For `!`, where the methods are all unreachable.
- For `map::Map`, which gets HIR stuff from the `TyCtxt`.
As part of getting rid of `map::Map`, this commit changes `impl
intravisit::Map for map::Map` to `impl intravisit::Map for TyCtxt`. It's
fairly straightforward except various things are renamed, because the
existing names would no longer have made sense.
- `trait intravisit::Map` becomes `trait intravisit::HirTyCtxt`, so named
because it gets some HIR stuff from a `TyCtxt`.
- `NestedFilter::Map` assoc type becomes `NestedFilter::MaybeTyCtxt`,
because it's always `!` or `TyCtxt`.
- `Visitor::nested_visit_map` becomes `Visitor::maybe_tcx`.
I deliberately made the new trait and associated type names different to
avoid the old `type Map: Map` situation, which I found confusing. We now
have `type MaybeTyCtxt: HirTyCtxt`.
The end goal is to eliminate `Map` altogether.
I added a `hir_` prefix to all of them, that seemed simplest. The
exceptions are `module_items` which became `hir_module_free_items` because
there was already a `hir_module_items`, and `items` which became
`hir_free_items` for consistency with `hir_module_free_items`.
changelog: [`declare_interior_mutable_const`,
`borrow_interior_mutable_const`]: resolve `<T as Trait>::AssocT`
projections
---
This came up during https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130543 where
we have `<T as AtomicPrimitive>::Assoc = AtomicT` instead of just
`AtomicT` and clippy failed to resolve that properly.
This really needs a review, because
- I don't know if `try_normalize_erasing_regions` is the right thing to
call here.
- I'm not sure if I peel off the correct amount of `ValTree::Branch`
layers (I think I do).
Also, shouldn't this lint's infrastructure rely on `Freeze` trait
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121675) instead of hardcoding
a list of known-to-be-interior-mutable types?
---
Previously filed this in the main rust repo
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136369), was asked to do it here
instead
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136369#issuecomment-2628527774).
When looking for `Default` impls that could be derived, we look at the
body of their `fn default()` and if it is an fn call or literal we check
if they are equivalent to what `#[derive(Default)]` would have used.
Now, when checking those fn calls in the `fn default()` body, we also
compare against the corresponding type's `Default::default` body to see
if our call is equivalent to that one.
For example, given
```rust
struct S;
impl S {
fn new() -> S { S }
}
impl Default for S {
fn default() -> S { S::new() }
}
```
`<S as Default>::default()` and `S::new()` are considered equivalent.
Given that, if the user also writes
```rust
struct R {
s: S,
}
impl Default for R {
fn default() -> R {
R { s: S::new() }
}
}
```
the `derivable_impls` lint will now trigger.
The wording unsafe pointer is less common and not mentioned in a lot of
places, instead this is usually called a "raw pointer". For the sake of
uniformity, we rename this method.
This came up during the review of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134424.
fixes: #12659
[`manual_map`] and [`manual_filter`] shares the same check logic, but
this issue doesn't seems like it could affect `manual_filter` (?)
---
changelog: make [`manual_map`] ignore types that contain `dyn`
By assuming that a recursive type is normalizable within the deeper
calls to `is_normalizable_helper()`, more cases can be handled by this
function.
In order to fix stack overflows, a recursion limit has also been added
for recursive generic type instantiations.
Fix#9798Fix#10508Fix#11915
changelog: [`large_enum_variant`]: more precise detection of variants
with large size differences
- `reindent_multiline()` always returns the result of
`reindent_multiline_inner()` which returns a `String`. Make
`reindent_multiline()` return a `String` as well, instead of a
systematically owned `Cow<'_, str>`.
- There is no reason for `reindent_multiline()` to force a caller to
build a `Cow<'_, str>` instead of passing a `&str` directly, especially
considering that a `String` will always be returned.
Also, both the input parameter and return value (of type `Cow<'_, str>`)
shared the same (elided) lifetime for no reason: this worked only
because the result was always the `Cow::Owned` variant which is
compatible with any lifetime.
As a consequence, the signature changes from:
```rust
fn reindent_multiline(s: Cow<'_, str>, …) -> Cow<'_, str> { … }
```
to
```rust
fn reindent_multiline(s: &str, …) -> String { … }
```
changelog: none
Labeled blocks cannot be used as-is in the "then" or "else" part of an
`if` expression. They must be enclosed in an anonymous block.
Fix#14099
changelog: [`match_bool`]: fix suggestion when the rewritten block has a
label
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
This is continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132282 .
I'm pretty sure I did everything right. In particular, I searched all occurrences of `Lrc` in submodules and made sure that they don't need replacement.
There are other possibilities, through.
We can define `enum Lrc<T> { Rc(Rc<T>), Arc(Arc<T>) }`. Or we can make `Lrc` a union and on every clone we can read from special thread-local variable. Or we can add a generic parameter to `Lrc` and, yes, this parameter will be everywhere across all codebase.
So, if you think we should take some alternative approach, then don't merge this PR. But if it is decided to stick with `Arc`, then, please, merge.
cc "Parallel Rustc Front-end" ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113349 )
r? SparrowLii
`@rustbot` label WG-compiler-parallel
#[contracts::requires(...)] + #[contracts::ensures(...)]
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128044
Updated contract support: attribute syntax for preconditions and postconditions, implemented via a series of desugarings that culminates in:
1. a compile-time flag (`-Z contract-checks`) that, similar to `-Z ub-checks`, attempts to ensure that the decision of enabling/disabling contract checks is delayed until the end user program is compiled,
2. invocations of lang-items that handle invoking the precondition, building a checker for the post-condition, and invoking that post-condition checker at the return sites for the function, and
3. intrinsics for the actual evaluation of pre- and post-condition predicates that third-party verification tools can intercept and reinterpret for their own purposes (e.g. creating shims of behavior that abstract away the function body and replace it solely with the pre- and post-conditions).
Known issues:
* My original intent, as described in the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/759) was to have a rustc-prefixed attribute namespace (like rustc_contracts::requires). But I could not get things working when I tried to do rewriting via a rustc-prefixed builtin attribute-macro. So for now it is called `contracts::requires`.
* Our attribute macro machinery does not provide direct support for attribute arguments that are parsed like rust expressions. I spent some time trying to add that (e.g. something that would parse the attribute arguments as an AST while treating the remainder of the items as a token-tree), but its too big a lift for me to undertake. So instead I hacked in something approximating that goal, by semi-trivially desugaring the token-tree attribute contents into internal AST constucts. This may be too fragile for the long-term.
* (In particular, it *definitely* breaks when you try to add a contract to a function like this: `fn foo1(x: i32) -> S<{ 23 }> { ... }`, because its token-tree based search for where to inject the internal AST constructs cannot immediately see that the `{ 23 }` is within a generics list. I think we can live for this for the short-term, i.e. land the work, and continue working on it while in parallel adding a new attribute variant that takes a token-tree attribute alongside an AST annotation, which would completely resolve the issue here.)
* the *intent* of `-Z contract-checks` is that it behaves like `-Z ub-checks`, in that we do not prematurely commit to including or excluding the contract evaluation in upstream crates (most notably, `core` and `std`). But the current test suite does not actually *check* that this is the case. Ideally the test suite would be extended with a multi-crate test that explores the matrix of enabling/disabling contracts on both the upstream lib and final ("leaf") bin crates.
