| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Option<Box<FfiSafeType>> are FFI-safe in function declarations too
|
|
|
|
|
|
!Sized)
|
|
help messages
|
|
Co-authored-by: Urgau <3616612+Urgau@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add visits to nodes that already have flat_maps in ast::MutVisitor
This PR aims to add `visit_` methods for every node that has a `flat_map_` in MutVisitor, giving implementers free choice over overriding `flat_map` for 1-to-n conversions or `visit` for a 1-to-1.
There is one major problem: `flat_map_stmt`.
While all other default implementations of `flat_map`s are 1-to-1 conversion, as they either only call visits or a internal 1-to-many conversions are natural, `flat_map_stmt` doesn't follow this pattern.
`flat_map_stmt`'s default implementation is a 1-to-n conversion that panics if n > 1 (effectively being a 1-to-[0;1]). This means that it cannot be used as is for a default `visit_stmt`, which would be required to be a 1-to-1.
Implementing `visit_stmt` without runtime checks would require it to reach over a potential `flat_map_item` or `filter_map_expr` overrides and call for their `visit` counterparts directly.
Other than that, if we want to keep the behavior of `flat_map_stmt` it cannot call `visit_stmt` internally.
To me, it seems reasonable to make all default implementations 1-to-1 conversions and let implementers handle `visit_stmt` if they need it, but I don't know if calling `visit` directly when a 1-to-1 is required is ok or not.
related to #128974 & #127615
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
|
|
Reduce false positives of tail-expr-drop-order from consumed values (attempt #2)
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Tracked by #123739.
Related to #129864 but not replacing, yet.
Related to #130836.
This is an implementation of the approach suggested in the [Zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/temporary.20drop.20order.20changes). A new MIR statement `BackwardsIncompatibleDrop` is added to the MIR syntax. The lint now works by inspecting possibly live move paths before at the `BackwardsIncompatibleDrop` location and the actual drop under the current edition, which should be one before Edition 2024 in practice.
|
|
take 2
open up coroutines
tweak the wordings
the lint works up until 2021
We were missing one case, for ADTs, which was
causing `Result` to yield incorrect results.
only include field spans with significant types
deduplicate and eliminate field spans
switch to emit spans to impl Drops
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <nikomat@amazon.com>
collect drops instead of taking liveness diff
apply some suggestions and add explantory notes
small fix on the cache
let the query recurse through coroutine
new suggestion format with extracted variable name
fine-tune the drop span and messages
bugfix on runtime borrows
tweak message wording
filter out ecosystem types earlier
apply suggestions
clippy
check lint level at session level
further restrict applicability of the lint
translate bid into nop for stable mir
detect cycle in type structure
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #132732 (Use attributes for `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries` lint)
- #133108 (lints_that_dont_need_to_run: never skip future-compat-reported lints)
- #133190 (CI: use free runner in dist-aarch64-msvc)
- #133196 (Make rustc --explain compatible with BusyBox less)
- #133216 (Implement `~const Fn` trait goal in the new solver)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
lints_that_dont_need_to_run: never skip future-compat-reported lints
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125116: future-compat lints show up with `--json=future-incompat` even if they are otherwise allowed in the crate. So let's ensure we do not skip those as part of the `lints_that_dont_need_to_run` logic.
I could not find a current future compat lint that is emitted by a lint pass, so there's no clear way to add a test for this.
Cc `@blyxyas` `@cjgillot`
|
|
Use attributes for `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries` lint
Checking for dangling pointers by function name isn't ideal, and leaves out certain pointer-returning methods that don't follow the `as_ptr` naming convention. Using an attribute for this lint cleans things up and allows more thorough coverage of other methods, such as `UnsafeCell::get()`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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`.
|
|
Add visit_coroutine_kind to ast::Visitor
r? ``@petrochenkov``
related to #128974
|
|
For expr `return (_ = 42);` unused_paren lint should not be triggered
fixes #131989
|
|
`UnusedBraces` checking `break`
|
|
|
|
fixes #131989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Urgau <3616612+Urgau@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
Prefer `pub(super)` in `unreachable_pub` lint suggestion
This PR updates the `unreachable_pub` lint suggestion to prefer `pub(super)` instead of `pub(crate)` when possible.
cc `@petrochenkov`
r? `@nnethercote`
|
