| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This will allow us to eagerly translate messages on a top-level
diagnostic, such as a `LintDiagnostic`. As a bonus, we can remove the
awkward closure passed into Subdiagnostic and make better use of
`Into`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing the work from #137162.
Every method gains a `hir_` prefix.
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Skip `if-let-rescope` lint unless requested by migration
Tracked by #124085
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131984#issuecomment-2448329667
Given that `if-let-rescope` is a lint to be enabled globally by an edition migration, there is no point in extracting the precise lint level on the HIR expression. This mitigates the performance regression discovered by the earlier perf-run.
cc `@Kobzol` `@rylev` `@traviscross` I propose a `rust-timer` run to measure how much performance that we can recover from the mitigation. :bow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preserve brackets around if-lets and skip while-lets
r? `@jieyouxu`
Tracked by #124085
Fresh out of #129466, we have discovered 9 crates that the lint did not successfully migrate because the span of `if let` includes the surrounding brackets `(..)` like the following, which surprised me a bit.
```rust
if (if let .. { .. } else { .. }) {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// the span somehow includes the surrounding brackets
}
```
There is one crate that failed the migration because some suggestion spans cross the macro expansion boundaries. Surely there is no way to patch them with `match` rewrite. To handle this case, we will instead require all spans to be tested for admissibility as suggestion spans.
Besides, there are 4 false negative cases discovered with desugared-`while let`. We don't need to lint them, because the `else` branch surely contains exactly one statement because the drop order is not changed whatsoever in this case.
```rust
while let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
}
// is desugared into
loop {
if let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
} else {
break;
// here can be nothing observable in this block
}
}
```
I believe this is the one and only false positive that I have found. I think we have finally nailed all the corner cases this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
apply rules by span edition
|
