closure field capturing: don't depend on alignment of packed fields
This fixes the closure field capture part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115305: field capturing always stops at projections into packed structs, no matter the alignment of the field. This means changing a private field type from `u8` to `u64` can never change how closures capture fields, which is probably what we want.
Here's an example where, before this PR, changing the type of a private field in a repr(Rust) struct can change the output of a program:
```rust
#![allow(dead_code)]
mod m {
// before patch
#[derive(Default)]
pub struct S1(u8);
// after patch
#[derive(Default)]
pub struct S2(u64);
}
struct NoisyDrop;
impl Drop for NoisyDrop {
fn drop(&mut self) {
eprintln!("dropped!");
}
}
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType {
field: m::S1, // output changes when this becomes S2
other_field: NoisyDrop,
third_field: Vec<()>,
}
fn test(r: MyType) {
let c = || {
let _val = std::ptr::addr_of!(r.field);
let _val = r.third_field;
};
drop(c);
eprintln!("before dropping");
}
fn main() {
test(MyType {
field: Default::default(),
other_field: NoisyDrop,
third_field: Vec::new(),
});
}
```
Of course this is a breaking change for the same reason that doing field capturing in the first place was a breaking change. Packed fields are relatively rare and depending on drop order is relatively rare, so I don't expect this to have much impact, but it's hard to be sure and even a crater run will only tell us so much.
Also see the [nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115315#issuecomment-1702807825).
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-rfc-2229` `@ehuss`
Don't capture `&[T; N]` when contents isn't read
Fixes the check in #111831Fixes#112607, although I decided to test the root cause rather than including the example in the issue as a test.
cc `@BoxyUwU`
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
Always capture slice when pattern requires checking the length
Fixes#111751
cc ``@zirconium-n,`` I see you were assigned to this but I've fixed some similar issues in the past and had an idea on how to investigate this.
Uplift `clippy::{drop,forget}_{ref,copy}` lints
This PR aims at uplifting the `clippy::drop_ref`, `clippy::drop_copy`, `clippy::forget_ref` and `clippy::forget_copy` lints.
Those lints are/were declared in the correctness category of clippy because they lint on useless and most probably is not what the developer wanted.
## `drop_ref` and `forget_ref`
The `drop_ref` and `forget_ref` lint checks for calls to `std::mem::drop` or `std::mem::forget` with a reference instead of an owned value.
### Example
```rust
let mut lock_guard = mutex.lock();
std::mem::drop(&lock_guard) // Should have been drop(lock_guard), mutex
// still locked
operation_that_requires_mutex_to_be_unlocked();
```
### Explanation
Calling `drop` or `forget` on a reference will only drop the reference itself, which is a no-op. It will not call the `drop` or `forget` method on the underlying referenced value, which is likely what was intended.
## `drop_copy` and `forget_copy`
The `drop_copy` and `forget_copy` lint checks for calls to `std::mem::forget` or `std::mem::drop` with a value that derives the Copy trait.
### Example
```rust
let x: i32 = 42; // i32 implements Copy
std::mem::forget(x) // A copy of x is passed to the function, leaving the
// original unaffected
```
### Explanation
Calling `std::mem::forget` [does nothing for types that implement Copy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.drop.html) since the value will be copied and moved into the function on invocation.
-----
Followed the instructions for uplift a clippy describe here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99696#pullrequestreview-1134072751
cc `@m-ou-se` (as T-libs-api leader because the uplifting was discussed in a recent meeting)
Prevent ICE with broken borrow in closure
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Fixes#108683
This solution isn't ideal, I'm hoping to find a way to continue compilation without ICEing.
Add test checking that it is possible to capture fields of a
multi-variant enum, when remaining variants are visibly uninhabited
(under the `exhaustive_patterns` feature gate).
