[`needless_doctest_main`]: ignore `main()` in `no_test` code fences
close#10491
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`needless_doctest_main`]: ignore `main()` in `no_test` code fence
[`map_unwrap_or`]: don't lint when referenced variable is moved
Fixes#10579.
The previous way of checking if changing `map(f).unwrap_or(a)` to `map_or(a, f)` is safe had a flaw when the argument to `unwrap_or` moves a binding and the `map` closure references that binding in some way.
It used to simply check if any of the identifiers in the `unwrap_or` argument are referenced in the `map` closure, but it didn't consider the case where the moved binding is referred to through references, for example:
```rs
let x = vec![1, 2];
let x_ref = &x;
Some(()).map(|_| x_ref.clone()).unwrap_or(x);
```
This compiles as is, but we cannot change it to `map_or`. This lint however did suggest changing it, because the simple way of checking if `x` is referenced anywhere in the `map` closure fails here. The safest thing to do here imo (what this PR does) is check if the moved value `x` is referenced *anywhere* in the body (before the `unwrap_or` call). One can always create a reference to the value and smuggle them into the closure, without actually referring to `x`. The original, linked issue shows another one such example:
```rs
let x = vec![1,2,3,0];
let y = x.strip_suffix(&[0]).map(|s| s.to_vec()).unwrap_or(x);
```
`x.strip_suffix(&[0])` creates a reference to `x` that is available through `s` inside of the `map` closure, so we can't change it to `map_or`.
changelog: [`map_unwrap_or`]: don't lint when referenced variable is moved
[`no_effect`]: Suggest adding `return` if applicable
Closes#10941
Unfortunately doesn't catch anything complex as `no_effect` already wouldn't, but I'm fine with that (it catches `ControlFlow` at least :D)
changelog: [`no_effect`]: Suggest adding `return` if statement has same type as function's return type and is the last statement in a block
Improve suggestion for [`needless_lifetimes`]
Fixes#10093
changelog: [`needless_lifetimes`]: Suggestion now points at the elidable lifetimes, rather than the entire function declaration
[`missing_const_for_fn`]: Ensure dropped locals are `~const Destruct`
this will check every local for `TerminatorKind::Drop` to ensure they can be evaluated at compile time, not sure if this is the best way to do this but MIR is confusing and it works so...
fixes#10617
changelog: [`missing_const_for_fn`]: Ensure dropped locals are `~const Destruct`
[`useless_vec`]: lint on `vec![_]` invocations that adjust to a slice
Fixes#2262 (well, actually my PR over at #10901 did do most of the stuff, but this PR implements the one last other case mentioned in the comments that my PR didn't fix)
Before this change, it would lint `(&vec![1]).iter().sum::<i32>()`, but not `vec![1].iter().sum::<i32>()`. This PR handles this case.
This also refactors a few things that I wanted to do in my other PR but forgot about.
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: lint on `vec![_]` invocations that adjust to a slice
Don't linting `as_conversions` in proc macros
Don't linting `as_conversions` if code was generated by procedural macro.
This PR fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9657
I implemented the fix changing the lint code to be a `LateLintPass` in order to be able to use the `is_from_proc_macro` out of the box. If the reviwer thinks that it would be better to do the other way (implementing `WithSearchPat`) just let me know. I might need some help in implementing it for the `ustc_ast::ast::Expr`
changelog: [`as_conversions`] avoiding warnings in macro-generated code
new lint: `large_stack_frames`
This implements a lint that looks for functions that use a lot of stack space.
It uses the MIR because conveniently every temporary gets its own local and I think it maps best to stack space used in a function.
It's probably going to be quite inaccurate in release builds, but at least for debug builds where opts are less aggressive on LLVM's side I think this is accurate "enough".
(This does not work for generic functions yet. Not sure if I should try to get it working in this PR or if it could land without it for now and be added in a followup PR.)
I also put it under the nursery category because this probably needs more work...
changelog: new lint: [`large_stack_frames`]
