| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Change `binary_asm_labels` to only fire on x86 and x86_64
In <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126922>, the `binary_asm_labels` lint was added which flags labels such as `0:` and `1:`. Before that change, LLVM was giving a confusing error on x86/x86_64 because of an incorrect interpretation.
However, targets other than x86 and x86_64 never had the error message and have not been a problem. This means that the lint was causing code that previously worked to start failing (e.g. `compiler_builtins`), rather than only providing a more clear messages where there has always been an error.
Adjust the lint to only fire on x86 and x86_64 assembly to avoid this regression.
Also update the help message.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127821
|
|
The link pointed to a closed issue. Create a new one and point the link
to it.
Also add a help message to hint what change the user could make.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127821
|
|
|
|
Fire unsafe_code lint on unsafe extern blocks
Fixes #126738
|
|
add lint for inline asm labels that look like binary
fixes #94426
Due to a bug/feature in LLVM, labels composed of only the digits `0` and `1` can sometimes be confused with binary literals, even if a binary literal would not be valid in that position.
This PR adds detection for such labels and also as a drive-by change, adds a note to cases such as `asm!(include_str!("file"))` that the label that it found came from an expansion of a macro, it wasn't found in the source code.
I expect this PR to upset some people that were using labels `0:` or `1:` without issue because they never hit the case where LLVM got it wrong, but adding a heuristic to the lint to prevent this is not feasible - it would involve writing a whole assembly parser for every target that we have assembly support for.
[zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-20/near/445870628)
r? ``@estebank``
|
|
|
|
This is adding a migration lint for the current (in the 2021 edition and previous)
to move expr to expr_2021 from expr
Co-Developed-by: Eric Holk
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
As the comment says, this lint "is mostly historical, and not
particularly useful". It's not worth keeping it around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest using a standalone doctest for non-local impl defs
This PR tweaks the lint output of the `non_local_definitions` lint to suggest using a standalone doctest instead of a moving the `impl` def to an impossible place as was already done with `macro_rules!` case in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124568.
Fixes #126339
r? ```@fmease```
|
|
|
|
This paves the way for tracking more state (e.g. error tainting) in the diagnostic context handle
|
|
Resolve elided lifetimes in assoc const to static if no other lifetimes are in scope
Implements the change to elided lifetime resolution in *associated consts* subject to FCP here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125190#issue-2301532282
Specifically, walk the enclosing lifetime ribs in an associated const, and if we find no other lifetimes, then resolve to `'static`.
Also make it work for traits, but don't lint -- just give a hard error in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicate in `non_local_defs` lint that the macro needs to change
This PR adds a note to indicate that the macro needs to change in the `non_local_definitions` lint output.
Address https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125089#discussion_r1616311862
Fixes #125681
r? `@estebank`
|
|
in scope
|
|
Spruce up the diagnostics of some early lints
Implement the various "*(note to myself) in a follow-up PR we should turn parts of this message into a subdiagnostic (help msg or even struct sugg)*" drive-by comments I left in #124417 during my review.
For context, before #124417, only a few early lints touched/decorated/customized their diagnostic because the former API made it a bit awkward. Likely because of that, things that should've been subdiagnostics were just crammed into the primary message. This PR rectifies this.
|
|
Unsafe extern blocks
This implements RFC 3484.
Tracking issue #123743 and RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3484
This is better reviewed commit by commit.
|
|
to prepend unsafe
|
|
Convert `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to an unconditional error.
We still check for the `rental`/`allsorts-rental` crates. But now if they are detected we just emit a fatal error, instead of emitting a warning and providing alternative behaviour.
The original "hack" implementing alternative behaviour was added in #73345.
The lint was added in #83127.
The tracking issue is #83125.
The direct motivation for the change is that providing the alternative behaviour is interfering with #125174 and follow-on work.
r? ``@estebank``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aaa
|
|
suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A small diagnostic improvement for dropping_copy_types
For a value `m` which implements `Copy` trait, `drop(m);` does nothing.
We now suggest user to ignore it by a abstract and general note: `let _ = ...`.
I think we can give a clearer note here: `let _ = m;`
fixes #125189
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
|
|
We still check for the `rental`/`allsorts-rental` crates. But now if
they are detected we just emit a fatal error, instead of emitting a
warning and providing alternative behaviour.
The original "hack" implementing alternative behaviour was added
in #73345.
The lint was added in #83127.
The tracking issue is #83125.
The direct motivation for the change is that providing the alternative
behaviour is interfering with #125174 and follow-on work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Remove wrong exception text for non-local macro_rules!
- Simplify anonymous const exception note
|
|
|
|
- Restrict const-anon exception diag to relevant places
- Invoke bounds (and type-inference) in non_local_defs
- Specialize diagnostic for impl without Trait
|
|
|
|
[perf] Delay the construction of early lint diag structs
Attacks some of the perf regressions from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124417#issuecomment-2123700666.
See individual commits for details. The first three commits are not strictly necessary.
However, the 2nd one (06bc4fc67145e3a7be9b5a2cf2b5968cef36e587, *Remove `LintDiagnostic::msg`*) makes the main change way nicer to implement.
It's also pretty sweet on its own if I may say so myself.
|
|
fixes #125189
|
|
Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self
This PR adds a check to avoid suggesting to add the unexpected cfgs inside the build-script when building the build-script it-self, as it won't have any effect, since build-scripts applies to their descended target.
Fixes #125368
|
|
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
|
|
r=Nilstrieb
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
|
|
* instead simply set the primary message inside the lint decorator functions
* it used to be this way before [#]101986 which introduced `msg` to prevent
good path delayed bugs (which no longer exist) from firing under certain
circumstances when lints were suppressed / silenced
* this is no longer necessary for various reasons I presume
* it shaves off complexity and makes further changes easier to implement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
