| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Handle field attributes in suggestions
Fix adjacent code
Address review comments
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13737#discussion_r1861352124
Address all review comments but one
This comment is not yet addressed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13737#discussion_r1874544907
`initializer_suggestions` -> `lint_inconsistent_struct_field_initializers`
|
|
|
|
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implement let-else type annotations natively
Tracking issue: #87335
Fixes #89688, fixes #89807, edit: fixes #89960 as well
As explained in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89688#issuecomment-940405082, the previous desugaring moved the let-else scrutinee into a dummy variable, which meant if you wanted to refer to it again in the else block, it had moved.
This introduces a new hir type, ~~`hir::LetExpr`~~ `hir::Let`, which takes over all the fields of `hir::ExprKind::Let(...)` and adds an optional type annotation. The `hir::Let` is then treated like a `hir::Local` when type checking a function body, specifically:
* `GatherLocalsVisitor` overrides a new `Visitor::visit_let_expr` and does pretty much exactly what it does for `visit_local`, assigning a local type to the `hir::Let` ~~(they could be deduplicated but they are right next to each other, so at least we know they're the same)~~
* It reuses the code in `check_decl_local` to typecheck the `hir::Let`, simply returning 'bool' for the expression type after doing that.
* ~~`FnCtxt::check_expr_let` passes this local type in to `demand_scrutinee_type`, and then imitates check_decl_local's pattern checking~~
* ~~`demand_scrutinee_type` (the blindest change for me, please give this extra scrutiny) uses this local type instead of of creating a new one~~
* ~~Just realised the `check_expr_with_needs` was passing NoExpectation further down, need to pass the type there too. And apparently this Expectation API already exists.~~
Some other misc notes:
* ~~Is the clippy code supposed to be autoformatted? I tried not to give huge diffs but maybe some rustfmt changes simply haven't hit it yet.~~
* in `rustc_ast_lowering/src/block.rs`, I noticed some existing `self.alias_attrs()` calls in `LoweringContext::lower_stmts` seem to be copying attributes from the lowered locals/etc to the statements. Is that right? I'm new at this, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
fix clippy format using `cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils}`
manually revert rustfmt line truncations
rename to hir::Let in clippy
Undo the shadowing of various `expr` variables after renaming `scrutinee`
reduce destructuring of hir::Let to avoid `expr` collisions
cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils}
bless new clippy::author output
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use ZST for fmt unsafety
as suggested here - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83302#issuecomment-923529151.
|
|
This allows the format_args! macro to keep the pre-expansion code out of
the unsafe block without doing gymnastics with nested `match`
expressions. This reduces codegen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get piece unchecked in `write`
We already use specialized `zip`, but it seems like we can do a little better by not checking `pieces` length at all.
`Arguments` constructors are now unsafe. So the `format_args!` expansion now includes an `unsafe` block.
<details>
<summary>Local Bench Diff</summary>
```text
name before ns/iter after ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
fmt::write_str_macro1 22,967 19,718 -3,249 -14.15% x 1.16
fmt::write_str_macro2 35,527 32,654 -2,873 -8.09% x 1.09
fmt::write_str_macro_debug 571,953 575,973 4,020 0.70% x 0.99
fmt::write_str_ref 9,579 9,459 -120 -1.25% x 1.01
fmt::write_str_value 9,573 9,572 -1 -0.01% x 1.00
fmt::write_u128_max 176 173 -3 -1.70% x 1.02
fmt::write_u128_min 138 134 -4 -2.90% x 1.03
fmt::write_u64_max 139 136 -3 -2.16% x 1.02
fmt::write_u64_min 129 135 6 4.65% x 0.96
fmt::write_vec_macro1 24,401 22,273 -2,128 -8.72% x 1.10
fmt::write_vec_macro2 37,096 35,602 -1,494 -4.03% x 1.04
fmt::write_vec_macro_debug 588,291 589,575 1,284 0.22% x 1.00
fmt::write_vec_ref 9,568 9,732 164 1.71% x 0.98
fmt::write_vec_value 9,516 9,625 109 1.15% x 0.99
```
</details>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
|
|
|
