mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
a733082be9
rust/tests/ui/lint/reasons-forbidden.stderr

32 lines
845 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
error[E0453]: allow(unsafe_code) incompatible with previous forbid
--> $DIR/reasons-forbidden.rs:25:13
introducing lint reason annotations (RFC 2383) This is just for the `reason =` name-value meta-item; the `#[expect(lint)]` attribute also described in the RFC is a problem for another day. The place where we were directly calling `emit()` on a match block (whose arms returned a mutable reference to a diagnostic-builder) was admittedly cute, but no longer plausibly natural after adding the if-let to the end of the `LintSource::Node` arm. This regards #54503.
2018-09-29 19:25:26 -05:00
|
LL | unsafe_code,
| ----------- `forbid` level set here
...
LL | #[allow(unsafe_code)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
|
= note: our errors & omissions insurance policy doesn't cover unsafe Rust
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
error: usage of an `unsafe` block
--> $DIR/reasons-forbidden.rs:29:5
Update tests
2020-01-08 11:02:10 -06:00
|
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
LL | / unsafe {
LL | |
LL | |
LL | | *a_billion_dollar_mistake
LL | | }
| |_____^
Update tests
2020-01-08 11:02:10 -06:00
|
= note: our errors & omissions insurance policy doesn't cover unsafe Rust
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/reasons-forbidden.rs:14:5
Fix inconsistencies in handling of inert attributes on statements When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it. This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example, the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for `#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed the warning. ```rust trait Foo { #[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first(); #[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second(); } ``` However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind` (e.g. `Item`). Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the `HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`. As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on item statements. This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert (non-proc-macro) attributes on statements: * The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for `StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind` variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for item statements. * The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to sibiling attributes on an item statement. For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
2020-10-23 17:17:00 -05:00
|
LL | unsafe_code,
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
Fix inconsistencies in handling of inert attributes on statements When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it. This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example, the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for `#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed the warning. ```rust trait Foo { #[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first(); #[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second(); } ``` However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind` (e.g. `Item`). Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the `HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`. As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on item statements. This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert (non-proc-macro) attributes on statements: * The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for `StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind` variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for item statements. * The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to sibiling attributes on an item statement. For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
2020-10-23 17:17:00 -05:00
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we are reducing its level. It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially. This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope for this commit.
2020-11-07 17:14:38 -06:00
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
introducing lint reason annotations (RFC 2383) This is just for the `reason =` name-value meta-item; the `#[expect(lint)]` attribute also described in the RFC is a problem for another day. The place where we were directly calling `emit()` on a match block (whose arms returned a mutable reference to a diagnostic-builder) was admittedly cute, but no longer plausibly natural after adding the if-let to the end of the `LintSource::Node` arm. This regards #54503.
2018-09-29 19:25:26 -05:00
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0453`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink