| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Delay formatting trimmed path until lint/error is emitted
Fixes #99387
r? `@davidtwco`
|
|
Warn about dead tuple struct fields
Continuation of #92972. Fixes #92790.
The language team has already commented on this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/92972#issuecomment-1021511970; I have incorporated their requests here. Specifically, there is now a new allow-by-default `unused_tuple_struct_fields` lint (name bikesheddable), and fields of unit type are ignored (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/92972#issuecomment-1021815408), so error messages look like this:
```
error: field is never read: `1`
--> $DIR/tuple-struct-field.rs:6:21
|
LL | struct Wrapper(i32, [u8; LEN], String);
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
help: change the field to unit type to suppress this warning while preserving the field numbering
|
LL | struct Wrapper(i32, (), String);
| ~~
```
r? `@joshtriplett`
|
|
r=petrochenkov
Enable unused_parens for match arms
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92751
Currently I can't get the `stderr` to work with `./x.py test`, but this should fix the issue. Help would be appreciated!
|
|
|
|
Prevent ICE for `doc_alias` on match arm, statement, expression
Fixes #99777.
This is a pretty minimal fix that should be safe, since rustdoc doesn't generate documentation for match arms, statements, or expressions. I mentioned in the linked issue that the `doc_alias` target checking should probably be improved to avoid future ICEs, but as a new contributor, I'm not confident enough with the HIR types to make a larger change.
|
|
fix is_disaligned logic for nested packed structs
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83605 broke the `is_disaligned` logic by bailing out of the loop in `is_within_packed` early. This PR fixes that problem and adds suitable tests.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99838
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Added `Impl`, `Closure`, ForeignMod` targets
- `Target::name` changed for `Target::Impl`
- Error output for `Target::ForeignMod` changed to "foreign module"
|
|
|
|
Logarithmus:feature/99255-omit-const-generic-suffixes, r=petrochenkov
feat: omit suffixes in const generics (e.g. `1_i32`)
Closes #99255
|
|
Stop injecting `#[allow(unused_qualifications)]` in generated `derive` implementations
Currently, the `#[derive]` attribute always injects an `#[allow(unused_qualifications)]` attribute in the generated implementation. This results in an error when a derive is used in combination with `#![forbid(unused_qualifications)]`, because the `forbid` rule by definition cannot be overridden by `allow`.
It appears that the original issue that prompted the inclusion of `#[allow(unused_qualifications)]` (#19102) is no longer present in the current stable release, and the associated [test case](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/issues/issue-19102.rs) still passes, so the `allow` is simply removed here.
Fixes #71898.
|
|
Currently `#![forbid(unused_qualifications)]` is incompatible with all
derive's because we add `#[allow(unused_qualifications)]` in all
generated impl's.
|
|
Closes #99255
|
|
The restriction that success ordering must be at least as strong as its
failure ordering in compare-exchange operations was lifted in #98383.
|
|
|
|
Support unstable moves via stable in unstable items
part of https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/moving.20items.20to.20core.20unstably and a blocker of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90328.
The libs-api team needs the ability to move an already stable item to a new location unstably, in this case for Error in core. Otherwise these changes are insta-stable making them much harder to merge.
This PR attempts to solve the problem by checking the stability of path segments as well as the last item in the path itself, which is currently the only thing checked.
|
|
`UnsafeCell` blocks niches inside its nested type from being available outside
fixes #87341
This implements the plan by `@eddyb` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87341#issuecomment-886083646
Somewhat related PR (not strictly necessary, but that cleanup made this PR simpler): #94527
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shorten def_span for more items.
The `def_span` query only returns the signature span for functions.
Struct/enum/union definitions can also have a very long body.
This PR shortens the associated span.
|
|
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97488 (Suggest blanket impl to the local traits)
- #98585 (Make `ThinBox<T>` covariant in `T`)
- #98644 (fix ICE with -Wrust-2021-incompatible-closure-captures)
- #98739 (fix grammar in useless doc comment lint)
- #98741 (Many small deriving cleanups)
- #98756 (Use const instead of function and make it private)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
fix grammar in useless doc comment lint
|
|
Rewrite dead-code pass to avoid fetching HIR.
This allows to get a more uniform handling of spans, and to simplify the grouping of diagnostics for variants and fields.
|
|
|
|
It helps programmers coming from other languages
modified: compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late/diagnostics.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.stderr
modified: compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late/diagnostics.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.stderr
modified: compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late/diagnostics.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.rs
modified: src/test/ui/lint/recommend-literal.stderr
|
|
Improve memory ordering diagnostics
Before:
After:
---
Before this change, the compiler suggests the failure ordering is too strong and suggests choosing a weaker ordering. After this change, it instead suggests the success ordering is not strong enough, and suggests chosing a stronger one. This is more likely to be correct.
Also, before this change, the compiler suggested downgrading an invalid AcqRel failure ordering to Relaxed, without mentioning Acquire as an option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Esteban Kuber <estebank@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
r=estebank
Collapse multiple dead code warnings into a single diagnostic
closes #97643
|
|
Remove the unused-`#[doc(hidden)]` logic from the `unused_attributes` lint
Fixes #96890.
It was found out that `#[doc(hidden)]` on trait impl items does indeed have an effect on the generated documentation (see the linked issue). In my opinion and the one of [others](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-rustdoc/topic/Validy.20checks.20for.20.60.23.5Bdoc.28hidden.29.5D.60/near/281846219), rustdoc's output is actually a bit flawed in that regard but that should be tracked in a new issue I suppose (I will open an issue for that in the near future).
The check was introduced in #96008 which is marked to be part of version `1.62` (current `beta`). As far as I understand, this means that **this PR needs to be backported** to `beta` to fix #96890 on time. Correct me if I am wrong.
CC `@dtolnay` (in case you would like to agree or disagree with my decision to fully remove this check)
`@rustbot` label A-lint T-compiler T-rustdoc
r? `@rust-lang/compiler`
|
|
|
|
|
|
add comments in `store_dead_field_or_variant`
support multiple log level
add a item ident label
fix ui tests
fix a ui test
fix a rustdoc ui test
use let chain
refactor: remove `store_dead_field_or_variant`
fix a tiny bug
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=wesleywiser,flip1995
Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383)
Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope.
This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust.
This will probably conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix.
---
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. :upside_down_face:
Follow-up of: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
Yeah, and that's it.
|
|
|
|
Never regard macro rules with compile_error! invocations as unused
The very point of compile_error! is to never be reached, and one of
the use cases of the macro, currently also listed as examples in the
documentation of compile_error, is to create nicer errors for wrong
macro invocations. Thus, we should never warn about unused macro arms
that contain invocations of compile_error.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96150#issuecomment-1126599107 and the discussion after that.
Furthermore, the PR also contains two commits to silence `unused_macro_rules` when a macro has an invalid rule, and to add a test that `unused_macros` does not behave badly in the same situation.
r? `@petrochenkov` as I've talked to them about this
|
|
r=wesleywiser
Fix `delayed_good_path_bug` ice for expected diagnostics (RFC 2383)
Fixes a small ICE with the `delayed_good_path_bug` check.
---
r? ``@wesleywiser``
cc: ``@eddyb`` this might be interesting, since you've added a `FIXME` comment above the modified check which kind of discusses a case like this
closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95540
cc: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
|
|
The unused_macro_rules lint had a bug where it would regard all rules of
a macro as unused if one rule were malformed. This bug doesn't exist
with the unused_macros lint. To ensure it doesn't appear in the future,
we add a test for it.
|
|
Prior to this commit, if a macro had any malformed rules, all rules would
be reported as unused, regardless of whether they were used or not.
So we just turn off unused rule checking completely for macros with
malformed rules.
|
|
The very point of compile_error! is to never be reached, and one of
the use cases of the macro, currently also listed as examples in the
documentation of compile_error, is to create nicer errors for wrong
macro invocations. Thus, we shuuld never warn about unused macro arms
that contain invocations of compile_error.
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97312 (Compute lifetimes in scope at diagnostic time)
- #97495 (Add E0788 for improper #[no_coverage] usage)
- #97579 (Avoid creating `SmallVec`s in `global_llvm_features`)
- #97767 (interpret: do not claim UB until we looked more into variadic functions)
- #97787 (E0432: rust 2018 -> rust 2018 or later in --explain message)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Add E0788 for improper #[no_coverage] usage
Essentially, this adds proper checking for the attribute (tracking issue #84605) and throws errors when it's put in obviously-wrong places, like on struct or const definitions. Most of the code is taken directly from the checks for the `#[inline]` attribute, since it's very similar.
Right now, the code only checks at the function level, but it seems reasonable to allow adding `#[no_coverage]` to individual blocks or expressions, so, for now those just throw `unused_attributes` warnings. Similarly, since there was a lot of desire to eventually allow recursive definitions as well on modules and impl blocks, these also throw `unused_attributes` instead of an error.
I'm not sure if anything has to be done since this error is technically for an unstable feature, but since an error for using unstable features will show up anyway, I think it's okay.
This is the first big piece needed for stabilising this attribute, although I personally would like to explore renaming it to `#[coverage(never)]` on a separate PR, which I will offer soon. There's a lot of discussion still to be had about that, which is why it will be kept separate.
I don't think much is needed besides adding this simple check and a UI test, but let me know if there's something else that should be added to make this happen.
|
