| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expressions
|
|
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
|
|
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
|
|
|
|
Suggest lint groups
Fixes rust-lang/rust-clippy#6986
|
|
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
|
|
Support lint tool names in rustc command line options
When rustc is running without a lint tool such as clippy enabled, options for lints such as `clippy::foo` are meant to be ignored. This was already working for those specified by attrs, such as `#![allow(clippy::foo)]`, but this did not work for command line arguments like `-A clippy::foo`. This PR fixes that issue.
Note that we discovered this issue while discussing https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5034.
Fixes #86628.
|
|
This change merges `check_lint_and_tool_name` into `check_lint_name` in
order to avoid having two very similar functions.
Also adds the `.stderr` file back for the test case, since apparently
it is still needed.
|
|
This shares a little more code between checking command line and
attribute lint specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only include lint in future_incompatible lint group if not an edition lint
A follow up to #86330 - this only includes lints annotated with `FutureIncompatibleInfo` in the `future_incompatibile` lint group if the future compatibility is not tied to an edition.
We probably want to rename `FutureIncompatibleInfo` to something else since this type is now used to indicate future breakages of all kinds (even those that happen in editions). I'd prefer to do that in a separate PR though.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
|
|
Make ForceWarn a lint level.
Follow-up to #85788
cc `@rylev`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support for force-warns
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512.
This PR adds a new command line option `force-warns` which will force the provided lints to warn even if they are allowed by some other mechanism such as `#![allow(warnings)]`.
Some remaining issues:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512 mentions that `force-warns` should also be capable of taking lint groups instead of individual lints. This is not implemented.
* If a lint has a higher warning level than `warn`, this will cause that lint to warn instead. We probably want to allow the lint to error if it is set to a higher lint and is not allowed somewhere else.
* One test is currently ignored because it's not working - when a deny-by-default lint is allowed, it does not currently warn under `force-warns`. I'm not sure why, but I wanted to get this in before the weekend.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
|
|
Also remove original_crate_name, which had the exact same implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also remove original_crate_name, which had the exact same implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
test: add more cases
test: add comments
refine msg
|
|
|
|
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
|
|
|
|
Allow registering tool lints with `register_tool`
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```rust
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66079#issuecomment-788589193, ``@chorman0773``
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
|
|
Right now, rustdoc users have an unpleasant situation: they can either
use the new tool lint names (`rustdoc::non_autolinks`) or they can use
the old names (`non_autolinks`). If they use the tool lints, they get a
hard error on stable compilers, because rustc rejects all tool names it
doesn't recognize. If they use the old name, they get a warning to
rename the lint to the new name. The only way to compile without
warnings is to add `#[allow(renamed_removed_lints)]`, which defeats the
whole point of the change: we *want* people to switch to the new name.
To avoid people silencing the lint and never migrating to the tool lint,
this avoids warning about the old name, while still allowing you to use
the new name. Once the new `rustdoc` tool name makes it to the stable
channel, we can change these lints to warn again.
This adds the new lint functions `register_alias` and `register_ignored`
- I didn't see an existing way to do this.
|
|
Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
|
|
- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
|
|
This allows a build system to indicate a location in its own dependency
specification files (eg Cargo's `Cargo.toml`) which can be reported
along side any unused crate dependency.
This supports several types of location:
- 'json' - provide some json-structured data, which is included in the json diagnostics
in a `tool_metadata` field
- 'raw' - emit the provided string into the output. This also appears as a json string in
`tool_metadata`.
If no `--extern-location` is explicitly provided then a default json entry of the form
`"tool_metadata":{"name":<cratename>,"path":<cratepath>}` is emitted.
|
|
|
|
introduce future-compatibility warning for forbidden lint groups
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit it to take effect.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
|
|
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed
in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where
a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group
is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit
it to take effect.
|
|
Improve safety of `LateContext::qpath_res`
This is my first rustc code change, inspired by hacking on clippy!
The first change is to clear cached `TypeckResults` from `LateContext` when visiting a nested item. I took a hint from [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/5e91c4ecc09312d8b63d250a432b0f3ef83f1df7/compiler/rustc_privacy/src/lib.rs#L1300).
Clippy has a `qpath_res` util function to avoid a possible ICE in `LateContext::qpath_res`. But the docs of `LateContext::qpath_res` promise no ICE. So this updates the `LateContext` method to keep its promises, and removes the util function.
Related: rust-lang/rust-clippy#4545
CC ````````````@eddyb```````````` since you've done related work
CC ````````````@flip1995```````````` FYI
|
