In edition 2024, `unsafe` blocks must be used inside `unsafe fn` to do
unsafe things. The `misnamed_getters` would not lint if the getter
expression was embedded inside an `unsafe` block.
`unsafe_fields` is an incomplete feature; comments have been put near
`#![expect(incomplete_features)]` to ensure that we revisit the
situation when the feature becomes complete.
changelog: [`expl_impl_clone_on_copy`]: do not lint in the presence of
`unsafe` fields
Fixes#14558
Blocks created by desugaring will not contain an explicit `return`. Do
not suggest to add it when the user has no control over the desugared
code.
Also, ensure that in a `xxx.await` expression, the suggested `return` is
emitted before the whole expression, not before the `await` keyword.
Fix#14411
changelog: [`implicit_return`]: fix proposed `return` position in the
presence of asynchronous code
`Option<Symbol>` is a much nicer and idiomatic way of representing "no
name" using empty symbols. And it works naturally for the item ordering
checking because `None < Some(_)` just like the empty string compares
less than all non-empty strings.
changelog: none
There were two bugs here. Let's assume `T` is a singleton type
implementing `Default` and that `f()` takes a `T`:
- `f(<T>::default())` cannot be replaced by `f(<T)` as it was (incorrect
spans – this is tricky because the type relative path uses a base span
covering only `T`, not `<T>`) (third commit)
- The argument of `f(<_>::default())` is inferred correctly, but cannot
be replaced by `<_>` or `_`, as this cannot be used to infer an instance
of a singleton type (first commit).
The second commit offers better error messages by pointing at the whole
expression.
Fix#12654
changelog: [`default_constructed_unit_struct`]: do not suggest incorrect
fix when using a type surrounded by brackets
`non_canonical_partial_ord_impl` will now recognize two forms of
canonical implementations: `Some(self.cmp(other))` and
`self.cmp(other).into()`.
changelog: [`non_canonical_partial_ord_impl`]: recognize
`self.cmp(other).into()` as a canonical implementation of
`PartialOrd::partial_cmp()`.
Fixesrust-lang/rust-clippy#13640
Fixes rust-lang/rust-clippy#14449, introduced in #14314
changelog: [`map_entry`]: fix a false positive where the lint would
trigger without any insert calls present
changelog: [`manual_abs_diff`]: Initial implementation
Hey, first time writing a new lint for clippy, hope I got it right. I
think it's pretty self-explanatory!
Added a few `fixme` test cases, where the lint can be improved to catch
more (probably rare) patterns, but opening a PR with this initial
implementation to make sure I'm on the right track, and that this lint
is acceptable at all.
😁
We do not want to remove casts done inside macros. Also, when printing
the suggestion, take it from the same context as the origin expression
(the root context).
Problems found while working on #14526, but should be merged even if
#14526 is not.
changelog: none
This PR fixes issues with the `missing_asserts_for_indexing` lint.
- false positive when the first index is the highest(or equal) value in
a list of indexes:
```rust
pub fn foo(slice: &[i32]) -> i32{
slice[1] * slice[0]
}
```
- false negative when an assert statement if found after the indexing
operation.
```rust
pub fn bar(slice: &[i32]) -> i32 {
let product = slice[0] * slice[1];
assert!(slice.len() > 1);
product
}
```
examples: https://godbolt.org/z/s7Y47vKdEcloses: #14079
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: ignore asserts found after
indexing, and do not require asserts if the first index is highest.
`unsafe_fields` is an incomplete feature; comments have been put near
`#![expect(incomplete_features)]` to ensure that we revisit the
situation when the feature becomes complete.
Not all host tools platforms support `f16`/`f128` builtins yet due to
LLVM assertion failures and miscompilations. Until them, Clippy should
avoid using `f16`/`f128` at runtime itself. See
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137630.
cc @tgross35
changelog: none
We do not want to remove casts done inside macros. Also, when printing
the suggestion, take it from the same context as the origin expression
(the root context).
Move methods from `Map` to `TyCtxt`, part 5.
This eliminates all methods on `Map`. Actually removing `Map` will occur in a follow-up PR.
A follow-up to #137504.
r? `@Zalathar`
Various local trait item iteration cleanups
Adding a trait impl for `Foo` unconditionally affected all queries that are interested in a completely independent trait `Bar`. Perf has no effect on this. We probably don't have a good perf test for this tho.
r? `@compiler-errors`
I am unsure about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139018/commits/9d05efb66f7b599eeacb5d2456f844fe4768e865 as it doesn't improve anything wrt incremental, because we still do all the checks for valid `Drop` impls, which subsequently will still invoke many queries and basically keep the depgraph the same.
I want to do
9549077a47/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/trait_def.rs (L141)
but would leave that to a follow-up PR, this one changes enough things as it is
Fixes#14488
Context: the `macro_metavars_in_unsafe` lint looks for unsafe blocks
with a macro span that then contain expressions with a root context span
(which means that it is a macro with an unsafe block expanding a
metavariable inside). In order to avoid emitting a warning for every
single macro invocation, it will deduplicate the unsafe blocks by the
span in the macro.
This leads to the linked issue where because of the deduplicating and
removing unsafe blocks that all belong to the same unsafe block in the
macro, only one of the unsafe blocks will actually have its lint
expectation fulfilled. This PR fixes that by manually fulfilling all of
the unsafe blocks from all expansions before deduplicating them.
changelog: [`macro_metavars_in_unsafe`]: fix unfulfilled `#[expect]` if
macro is invoked multiple times
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
`ast::Item` has an `ident` field.
- It's always non-empty for these item kinds: `ExternCrate`, `Static`,
`Const`, `Fn`, `Mod`, `TyAlias`, `Enum`, `Struct`, `Union`,
`Trait`, `TraitAlias`, `MacroDef`, `Delegation`.
- It's always empty for these item kinds: `Use`, `ForeignMod`,
`GlobalAsm`, `Impl`, `MacCall`, `DelegationMac`.
There is a similar story for `AssocItemKind` and `ForeignItemKind`.
Some sites that handle items check for an empty ident, some don't. This
is a very C-like way of doing things, but this is Rust, we have sum
types, we can do this properly and never forget to check for the
exceptional case and never YOLO possibly empty identifiers (or possibly
dummy spans) around and hope that things will work out.
The commit is large but it's mostly obvious plumbing work. Some notable
things.
- `ast::Item` got 8 bytes bigger. This could be avoided by boxing the
fields within some of the `ast::ItemKind` variants (specifically:
`Struct`, `Union`, `Enum`). I might do that in a follow-up; this
commit is big enough already.
- For the visitors: `FnKind` no longer needs an `ident` field because
the `Fn` within how has one.
- In the parser, the `ItemInfo` typedef is no longer needed. It was used
in various places to return an `Ident` alongside an `ItemKind`, but
now the `Ident` (if present) is within the `ItemKind`.
- In a few places I renamed identifier variables called `name` (or
`foo_name`) as `ident` (or `foo_ident`), to better match the type, and
because `name` is normally used for `Symbol`s. It's confusing to see
something like `foo_name.name`.
By changing two of the fields to use `Option<Ident>` instead of `Ident`.
As a result, `None` now means "no identifier", which is much clearer
than using an empty identifier.
Having a macro call as the scrutinee is supported. However, the proposed
suggestion must use the macro call itself, not its expansion.
When the scrutinee is a macro call, do not complain about an irrefutable
match, as the user may not be aware of the result of the macro. A
comparaison will be suggested instead, as if we couldn't see the outcome
of the macro.
Similarly, do not accept macro calls as arm patterns.
changelog: [`single_match`]: proper suggestions in presence of macros
Fixes#14493
