| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Add consistency with phrases "meantime" and "mean time"
"mean time" is used in a few places while "meantime" is used everywhere else; this would make usage consistent throughout the codebase.
|
|
privacy: Stabilize lint `unnameable_types`
This is the last piece of ["RFC #2145: Type privacy and private-in-public lints"](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054).
Having unstable lints is not very useful because you cannot even dogfood them in the compiler/stdlib in this case (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113284).
The worst thing that may happen when a lint is removed are some `removed_lints` warnings, but I haven't heard anyone suggesting removing this specific lint.
This lint is allow-by-default and is supposed to be enabled explicitly.
Some false positives are expected, because sometimes unnameable types are a legitimate pattern.
This lint also have some unnecessary false positives, that can be fixed - see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120146 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120149.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add detection of [Partial]Ord methods in the `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint
Partially addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121264 by adding diagnostics items for PartialOrd and Ord methods, detecting such diagnostics items as "binary operation" and suggesting the correct replacement.
I also took the opportunity to change the suggestion to use new methods `.cast()` on `*mut T` an d `*const T`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experimental feature postfix match
This has a basic experimental implementation for the RFC postfix match (rust-lang/rfcs#3295, #121618). [Liaison is](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Postfix.20Match.20Liaison/near/423301844) ```@scottmcm``` with the lang team's [experimental feature gate process](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/src/how_to/experiment.md).
This feature has had an RFC for a while, and there has been discussion on it for a while. It would probably be valuable to see it out in the field rather than continue discussing it. This feature also allows to see how popular postfix expressions like this are for the postfix macros RFC, as those will take more time to implement.
It is entirely implemented in the parser, so it should be relatively easy to remove if needed.
This PR is split in to 5 commits to ease review.
1. The implementation of the feature & gating.
2. Add a MatchKind field, fix uses, fix pretty.
3. Basic rustfmt impl, as rustfmt crashes upon seeing this syntax without a fix.
4. Add new MatchSource to HIR for Clippy & other HIR consumers
|
|
Stop using `box PAT` syntax for deref patterns, as it's misleading and
also causes their semantics being tangled up.
|
|
|
|
other hir nodes that were fed
|
|
Provide structured suggestion for `#![feature(foo)]`
```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix #55941.
|
|
```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix #55941.
|
|
Move check-cfg diagnostic logic into a separate file
as well as adding some triagebot mentions (for me) for check-cfg related files.
``@rustbot`` label +F-check-cfg
|
|
r=oli-obk,wesleywiser
Move generic `NonZero` `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start` attribute to inner type.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120257
r? `@dtolnay`
|
|
|
|
Split refining_impl_trait lint into _reachable, _internal variants
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119535#issuecomment-1909352040:
> We discussed this today in triage and developed a consensus to:
>
> * Add a separate lint against impls that refine a return type defined with RPITIT even when the trait is not crate public.
> * Place that in a lint group along with the analogous crate public lint.
> * Create an issue to solicit feedback on these lints (or perhaps two separate ones).
> * Have the warnings displayed with each lint reference this issue in a similar manner to how we do that today with the required `Self: '0'` bound on GATs.
> * Make a note to review this feedback on 2-3 release cycles.
This points users to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718 to leave feedback.
|
|
r=compiler-errors,petrochenkov
`f16` and `f128` step 3: compiler support & feature gate
Continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121841, another portion of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607
This PR exposes the new types to the world and adds a feature gate. Marking this as a draft because I need some feedback on where I did the feature gate check. It also does not yet catch type via suffixed literals (so the feature gate test will fail, probably some others too because I haven't belssed).
If there is a better place to check all types after resolution, I can do that. If not, I figure maybe I can add a second gate location in AST when it checks numeric suffixes.
Unfortunately I still don't think there is much testing to be done for correctness (codegen tests or parsed value checks) until we have basic library support. I think that will be the next step.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb`
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
|
|
Rename `StmtKind::Local` variant into `StmtKind::Let`
It comes from this [discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
Starting point was:
> I often end up looking at [ExprKind::Let](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_hir/enum.ExprKind.html#variant.Let) instead of Local because of the name. I think renaming it (both the `ExprKind` variant and the Let struct) to `LetPattern` or LetPat could improve the situation as I'm not sure I'm not the only one encountering this issue.
And then it evolved into:
> It's already `Expr::Let` instead of `StmtKind::Local`. Counterproposal: rename `StmtKind::Local` to `StmtKind::Let`.
The goal here is to clear this confusion.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
Create some minimal HIR for associated opaque types
`LocalDefId`s for opaque types in traits and impls are created after AST -> HIR lowering, so they don't have corresponding HIR and return their various properties through fed queries.
In this PR I also feed some core HIR-related queries for these `LocalDefId`s (which happen to be HIR owners).
As a result all `LocalDefId`s now have corresponding `HirId`s and HIR nodes, and "optional" methods like `opt_local_def_id_to_hir_id` and `opt_hir_node_by_def_id` can be removed.
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120206.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Replace some nested if-let with let-chains
- Tweak a match pattern to allow shorthand struct syntax
- Fuse an `is_empty` check with getting the last element
- Merge some common code that emits `MalformedAttribute` and continues
- Format `"{tool}::{name}"` in a way that's consistent with other match arms
- Replace if-let-else-panic with let-else
- Use early-exit to flatten a method body
|
|
The internal diagnostic lint currently only allows one, because that was
all that occurred in practice. But rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12453
wants to introduce functions with more than one, and this limitation is
getting in the way.
|
|
For increased consistency.
- session_diagnostic_derive -> diagnostic_derive
- session_subdiagnostic_derive -> subdiagnostic_derive
- SubdiagnosticDeriveBuilder -> SubdiagnosticDerive
|
|
To match `derive(LintDiagnostic)`.
|
|
To match `derive(Subdiagnostic)`.
Also rename `add_to_diagnostic{,_with}` as `add_to_diag{,_with}`.
|
|
To match `derive(Diagnostic)`.
Also rename `into_diagnostic` as `into_diag`.
|
|
|
|
Misc improvements to non local defs lint implementation
This PR is a collection of small improvements I found when I [needlessly tried](https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120393#issuecomment-1971787475) to fix a "perf-regression" in the lint implementation.
I recommend looking at each commit individually.
|
|
Fix crash in internal late lint checking
Fixes #122177
|
|
Use `ControlFlow` in visitors.
Follow up to #121256
This does have a few small behaviour changes in some diagnostic output where the visitor will now find the first match rather than the last match. The change in `find_anon_types.rs` has the only affected test. I don't see this being an issue as the last occurrence isn't any better of a choice than the first.
|
|
|
