Uplift the invalid_atomic_ordering lint from clippy to rustc
This is mostly just a rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79654; I've copy/pasted the text from that PR below.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one, but feel free to reassign.
---
This is an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/390.
As mentioned, in general this turns an unconditional runtime panic into a (compile time) lint failure. It has no false positives, and the only false negatives I'm aware of are if `Ordering` isn't specified directly and is comes from an argument/constant/whatever.
As a result of it having no false positives, and the alternative always being strictly wrong, it's on as deny by default. This seems right.
In the [zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Uplift.20the.20.60invalid_atomic_ordering.60.20lint.20from.20clippy/near/218483957) `@joshtriplett` suggested that lang team should FCP this before landing it. Perhaps libs team cares too?
---
Some notes on the code for reviewers / others below
## Changes from clippy
The code is changed from [the implementation in clippy](68cf94f6a6/clippy_lints/src/atomic_ordering.rs) in the following ways:
1. Uses `Symbols` and `rustc_diagnostic_item`s instead of string literals.
- It's possible I should have just invoked Symbol::intern for some of these instead? Seems better to use symbol, but it did require adding several.
2. The functions are moved to static methods inside the lint struct, as a way to namespace them.
- There's a lot of other code in that file — which I picked as the location for this lint because `@jyn514` told me that seemed reasonable.
3. Supports unstable AtomicU128/AtomicI128.
- I did this because it was almost easier to support them than not — not supporting them would have (ideally) required finding a way not to give them a `rustc_diagnostic_item`, which would have complicated an already big macro.
- These don't have tests since I wasn't sure if/how I should make tests conditional on whether or not the target has the atomic... This is to a certain extent an issue of 64bit atomics too, but 128-bit atomics are much less common. Regardless, the existing tests should be *more* than thorough enough here.
4. Minor changes like:
- grammar tweaks ("loads cannot have `Release` **and** `AcqRel` ordering" => "loads cannot have `Release` **or** `AcqRel` ordering")
- function renames (`match_ordering_def_path` => `matches_ordering_def_path`),
- avoiding clippy-specific helper methods that don't exist in rustc_lint and didn't seem worth adding for this case (for example `cx.struct_span_lint` vs clippy's `span_lint_and_help` helper).
## Potential issues
(This is just about the code in this PR, not conceptual issues with the lint or anything)
1. I'm not sure if I should have used a diagnostic item for `Ordering` and its variants (I couldn't figure out how really, so if I should do this some pointers would be appreciated).
- It seems possible that failing to do this might possibly mean there are more cases this lint would miss, but I don't really know how `match_def_path` works and if it has any pitfalls like that, so maybe not.
2. I *think* I deprecated the lint in clippy (CC `@flip1995` who asked to be notified about clippy changes in the future in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75671#issuecomment-718731659)) but I'm not sure if I need to do anything else there.
- I'm kind of hoping CI will catch if I missed anything, since `x.py test src/tools/clippy` fails with a lot of errors with and without my changes (and is probably a nonsense command regardless). Running `cargo test` from src/tools/clippy also fails with unrelated errors that seem like refactorings that didnt update clippy? So, honestly no clue.
3. I wasn't sure if the description/example I gave good. Hopefully it is. The example is less thorough than the one from clippy here: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#invalid_atomic_ordering. Let me know if/how I should change it if it needs changing.
4. It pulls in the `if_chain` crate. This crate was already used in clippy, and seems like it's used elsewhere in rustc, but I'm willing to rewrite it to not use this if needed (I'd prefer not to, all things being equal).
- Deprecate clippy::invalid_atomic_ordering
- Use rustc_diagnostic_item for the orderings in the invalid_atomic_ordering lint
- Reduce code duplication
- Give up on making enum variants diagnostic items and just look for
`Ordering` instead
I ran into tons of trouble with this because apparently the change to
store HIR attrs in a side table also gave the DefIds of the
constructor instead of the variant itself. So I had to change
`matches_ordering` to also check the grandparent of the defid as well.
- Rename `atomic_ordering_x` symbols to just the name of the variant
- Fix typos in checks - there were a few places that said "may not be
Release" in the diagnostic but actually checked for SeqCst in the lint.
- Make constant items const
- Use fewer diagnostic items
- Only look at arguments after making sure the method matches
This prevents an ICE when there aren't enough arguments.
- Ignore trait methods
- Only check Ctors instead of going through `qpath_res`
The functions take values, so this couldn't ever be anything else.
- Add if_chain to allowed dependencies
- Fix grammar
- Remove unnecessary allow
Link to edition guide instead of issues for 2021 lints.
This changes the 2021 lints to not link to github issues, but to the edition guide instead.
Fixes #86996
Make `SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` warn by default
This PR makes the `SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint warn by default.
To avoid showing a large number of un-actionable warnings to users, we only enable the lint for macros defined in the same crate. This ensures that users will be able to fix the warning by simply removing a semicolon.
In the future, I'd like to enable this lint unconditionally, and eventually make it into a hard error in a future edition. This PR is a step towards that goal.
Update BARE_TRAIT_OBJECT and ELLIPSIS_INCLUSIVE_RANGE_PATTERNS to errors in Rust 2021
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81244 by updating two lints to errors in the Rust 2021 edition.
r? `@estebank`
Add `Unsupported` to `std::io::ErrorKind`
I noticed a significant portion of the uses of `ErrorKind::Other` in std is for unsupported operations.
The notion that a specific operation is not available on a target (and will thus never succeed) seems semantically distinct enough from just "an unspecified error occurred", which is why I am proposing to add the variant `Unsupported` to `std::io::ErrorKind`.
**Implementation**:
The following variant will be added to `std::io::ErrorKind`:
```rust
/// This operation is unsupported on this platform.
Unsupported
```
`std::io::ErrorKind::Unsupported` is an error returned when a given operation is not supported on a platform, and will thus never succeed; there is no way for the software to recover. It will be used instead of `Other` where appropriate, e.g. on wasm for file and network operations.
`decode_error_kind` will be updated to decode operating system errors to `Unsupported`:
- Unix and VxWorks: `libc::ENOSYS`
- Windows: `c::ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED`
- WASI: `wasi::ERRNO_NOSYS`
**Stability**:
This changes the kind of error returned by some functions on some platforms, which I think is not covered by the stability guarantees of the std? User code could depend on this behavior, expecting `ErrorKind::Other`, however the docs already mention:
> Errors that are `Other` now may move to a different or a new `ErrorKind` variant in the future. It is not recommended to match an error against `Other` and to expect any additional characteristics, e.g., a specific `Error::raw_os_error` return value.
The most recent variant added to `ErrorKind` was `UnexpectedEof` in `1.6.0` (almost 5 years ago), but `ErrorKind` is marked as `#[non_exhaustive]` and the docs warn about exhaustively matching on it, so adding a new variant per se should not be a breaking change.
The variant `Unsupported` itself could be marked as `#[unstable]`, however, because this PR also immediately uses this new variant and changes the errors returned by functions I'm inclined to agree with the others in this thread that the variant should be insta-stabilized.
