| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Use links to edition guide for edition migrations
This switches the migration lints for the 2024 edition to point to the edition guide documentation instead of the tracking issues. I expect the documentation should be easier to understand for a user, compared to most of the issues which don't have any direct information, and can be a bit confusing to navigate, or have outdated information.
|
|
Remove `rustc::existing_doc_keyword` lint
The check doesn't require a lint.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
|
|
`CheckAttrVisitor::check_doc_keyword` checks `#[doc(keyword = "..")]`
attributes to ensure they are on an empty module, and that the value is
a non-empty identifier.
The `rustc::existing_doc_keyword` lint checks these attributes to ensure
that the value is the name of a keyword.
It's silly to have two different checking mechanisms for these
attributes. This commit does the following.
- Changes `check_doc_keyword` to check that the value is the name of a
keyword (avoiding the need for the identifier check, which removes a
dependency on `rustc_lexer`).
- Removes the lint.
- Updates tests accordingly.
There is one hack: the `SelfTy` FIXME case used to used to be handled by
disabling the lint, but now is handled with a special case in
`is_doc_keyword`. That hack will go away if/when the FIXME is fixed.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume1.gomez@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update spelling of "referring"
I noticed that `referring` was spelled incorrectly in the output of `unexpected 'cfg' condition name` warnings; it looks like it was also incorrectly spelled in a doc comment. I've update both instances.
|
|
Fix `trimmed_def_paths` ICE in the function ptr comparison lint
This PR fixes an ICE with `trimmed_def_paths` ICE in the function ptr comparison lint, specifically when pretty-printing user types but then not using the resulting pretty-printing.
Fixes #134345
r? `@saethlin`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hir attributes
This PR needs some explanation, it's somewhat large.
- This is step one as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/796. I've added a new `hir::Attribute` which is a lowered version of `ast::Attribute`. Right now, this has few concrete effects, however every place that after this PR parses a `hir::Attribute` should later get a pre-parsed attribute as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/796 and transitively https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229.
- an extension trait `AttributeExt` is added, which is implemented for both `ast::Attribute` and `hir::Atribute`. This makes `hir::Attributes` mostly compatible with code that used to parse `ast::Attribute`. All its methods are also added as inherent methods to avoid having to import the trait everywhere in the compiler.
- Incremental can not not hash `ast::Attribute` at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add external macros specific diagnostics for check-cfg
This PR adds specific check-cfg diagnostics for unexpected cfg in external macros.
As well as hiding the some of the Cargo specific help/suggestions as they distraction for external macros and are generally not the right solution.
Follow-up to #132577
`@rustbot` label +L-unexpected_cfgs
r? compiler
|
|
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
|
|
estebank:silence-resolve-errors-from-mod-with-parse-errors, r=davidtwco
Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around in the HIR and mark its `DefId` in the `Resolver`. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by expansion of `mod`s with parse errors.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97734.
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=jieyouxu
allow `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint in test modules
Since #133545, `x check compiler --stage 1` no longer works because compiler test modules trigger `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint errors. Bootstrap shouldn't control when to ignore or enable this lint in the compiler tree (using `Kind != Test` was ineffective for obvious reasons).
Also, conditionally adding this rustflag invalidates the build cache between `x test` and other commands.
This PR removes the `Kind` check from bootstrap and handles it directly in the compiler tree in a more natural way.
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix #97734.
|
|
Make `Copy` unsafe to implement for ADTs with `unsafe` fields
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites of that declaration also entail `unsafe`. For example, a field declared `unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example, idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
r? ```@compiler-errors```
|
|
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131669> due to ICE
reports:
- <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134059> (real-world)
- <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134060> (fuzzing)
The changes can be re-landed with those cases addressed.
This reverts commit 703bb982303ecab02fec593899639b4c3faecddd, reversing
changes made to f415c07494b98e4559e4b13a9c5f867b0e6b2444.
|
|
Parse guard patterns
This implements the parsing of [RFC3637 Guard Patterns](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3637-guard-patterns.html) (see also [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129967)). This PR is extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129996 with minor modifications.
cc `@max-niederman`
|
|
Actually walk into lifetimes and attrs in `EarlyContextAndPass`
Visitors that don't also call `walk_*` are kinda a footgun...
I believe all the other early lint functions walk into their types correctly at this point.
|
|
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites
of that declaration also require `unsafe`. For example, a field declared
`unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly
discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example,
idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields
will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and
although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It
remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to
implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option<Box<FfiSafeType>> are FFI-safe in function declarations too
|
|
|
|
|
|
!Sized)
|
|
help messages
|
|
Co-authored-by: Urgau <3616612+Urgau@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
|
|
Add lint against function pointer comparisons
This is kind of a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117758 where we added a lint against wide pointer comparisons for being ambiguous and unreliable; well function pointer comparisons are also unreliable. We should IMO follow a similar logic and warn people about it.
-----
## `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of function pointer as the operands.
### Example
```rust
fn foo() {}
let a = foo as fn();
let _ = a == foo;
```
### Explanation
Function pointers comparisons do not produce meaningful result since they are never guaranteed to be unique and could vary between different code generation units. Furthermore different function could have the same address after being merged together.
----
This PR also uplift the very similar `clippy::fn_address_comparisons` lint, which only linted on if one of the operand was an `ty::FnDef` while this PR lints proposes to lint on all `ty::FnPtr` and `ty::FnDef`.
```@rustbot``` labels +I-lang-nominated
~~Edit: Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/323 being accepted and it's follow-up pr~~
|
|
dingxiangfei2009:reduce-false-positive-if-let-rescope, r=jieyouxu
Reduce false positives on some common cases from if-let-rescope lint
r? `@jieyouxu`
We would like to identify a very common case in the ecosystem in which we do not need to apply the lint suggestion for the new Edition 2024 `if let` semantics.
In this patch we excluded linting from `if let`s in statements and block tail expressions. In these simple cases, new Edition 2024 drop orders are identical to those of Edition 2021 and prior.
However, conservatively we should still lint for the other cases, because [this example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=2113df5ce78f161d32a1190faf5c7469) shows that the drop order changes are very pronounced, some of which are even sensitive to runtime data.
|
|
Lint against Symbol::intern on a string literal
Disabled in tests where this doesn't make much sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix confusing diagnostic for reserved `##`
Closes #131615
|
