mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
c0b64d97be
rust/src/test/ui/lint/outer-forbid.stderr

31 lines
974 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(unused_variables) incompatible with previous forbid
Update tests
2020-01-08 11:02:10 -06:00
--> $DIR/outer-forbid.rs:19:9
|
LL | #![forbid(unused, non_snake_case)]
| ------ `forbid` level set here
LL |
LL | #[allow(unused_variables)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
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(unused) incompatible with previous forbid
--> $DIR/outer-forbid.rs:22:9
Update tests
2020-01-08 11:02:10 -06:00
|
LL | #![forbid(unused, non_snake_case)]
| ------ `forbid` level set here
...
LL | #[allow(unused)]
| ^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
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(nonstandard_style) incompatible with previous forbid
--> $DIR/outer-forbid.rs:25:9
Update tests
2020-01-08 11:02:10 -06:00
|
LL | #![forbid(unused, non_snake_case)]
| -------------- `forbid` level set here
...
LL | #[allow(nonstandard_style)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
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 3 previous errors
only set "overruled by outer forbid" once for lint groups, by group name Previously, conflicting forbid/allow attributes for a lint group would result in a separate "allow(L) overruled by outer forbid(L)" error for every lint L in the group. This was needlessly and annoyingly verbose; we prefer to just have one error pointing out the conflicting attributes. Resolves #42873.
2017-06-23 21:22:06 -05:00
update tests
2018-03-03 08:59:40 -06:00
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0453`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink