Fix while_let_on_iterator dropping loop label when applying fix.
Loop label was not persisted when displaying help and was therefore producing broken rust code when applying fixes.
Solution was to store the `ast::Label` when creating a `higher::WhileLet` from an expression and add the label name to the lint suggestion and diagnostics.
---
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/13123
changelog: [`while_let_on_iterator`]: Fix issue dropping loop label when displaying help and applying fixes.
* Construct lint passes by taking `Conf` by reference.
* Use `HashSet` configs in less places
* Move some `check_crate` code into the pass constructor when possible.
The `restriction` group contains many lints which are not about
necessarily “bad” things, but style choices — perhaps even style choices
which contradict conventional Rust style — or are otherwise very
situational. This results in silly wording like “Why is this bad?
It isn't, but ...”, which I’ve seen confuse a newcomer at least once.
To improve this situation, this commit replaces the “Why is this bad?”
section heading with “Why restrict this?”, for most, but not all,
restriction lints. I left alone the ones whose placement in the
restriction group is more incidental.
In order to make this make sense, I had to remove the “It isn't, but”
texts from the contents of the sections. Sometimes further changes
were needed, or there were obvious fixes to make, and I went ahead
and made those changes without attempting to split them into another
commit, even though many of them are not strictly necessary for the
“Why restrict this?” project.
Add new lint `while_float`
This PR adds a nursery lint that checks for while loops comparing floating point values.
changelog:
```
changelog: [`while_float`]: Checks for while loops comparing floating point values.
```
Fixes#758
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
The lint used to check for patterns looking like:
```rs
for (_, x) in some_iter.enumerate() {
// Index is ignored
}
```
This commit further checks for chained method calls constructs where we
can detect that the index is unused. Currently, this checks only for the
following patterns:
```rs
some_iter.enumerate().map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
let x = some_iter.enumerate();
x.map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
```
where `map_function` is one of `all`, `any`, `filter_map`, `find_map`,
`flat_map`, `for_each` or `map`.
Fixes#12411.
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
Pack u128 in the compiler to mitigate new alignment
This is based on #116672, adding a new `#[repr(packed(8))]` wrapper on `u128` to avoid changing any of the compiler's size assertions. This is needed in two places:
* `SwitchTargets`, otherwise its `SmallVec<[u128; 1]>` gets padded up to 32 bytes.
* `LitKind::Int`, so that entire `enum` can stay 24 bytes.
* This change definitely has far-reaching effects though, since it's public.
