This test was ignored long ago in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/20578/ when the syntax for
closures was changed.
The current status is that a closure with an explicit `!` return type
will trigger the `unreachable_code` lint which appears to be the
original intent of the test
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/16836). A closure without a
return type won't trigger the lint since the `!` type isn't inferred
(AFAIK). This restores the test to its original form.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #110153 (Fix typos in compiler)
- #110165 (rustdoc: use CSS `overscroll-behavior` instead of JavaScript)
- #110175 (Symbol cleanups)
- #110203 (Remove `..` from return type notation)
- #110205 (rustdoc: make settings radio and checks thicker, less contrast)
- #110222 (Improve the error message when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro)
- #110237 (Split out a separate feature gate for impl trait in associated types)
- #110241 (tidy: Issue an error when UI test limits are too high)
Failed merges:
- #110218 (Remove `ToRegionVid`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `useless_anonymous_reexport` lint
This is a follow-up of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/108936. We once again show all anonymous re-exports in rustdoc, however we also wanted to add a lint to let users know that it very likely doesn't have the effect they think it has.
Make `unused_allocation` lint against `Box::new` too
Previously it only linted against `box` syntax, which likely won't ever be stabilized, which is pretty useless. Even now I'm not sure if it's a meaningful lint, but it's at least something 🤷
This means that code like the following will be linted against:
```rust
Box::new([1, 2, 3]).len();
f(&Box::new(1)); // where f : &i32 -> ()
```
The lint works by checking if a `Box::new` (or `box`) expression has an a borrow adjustment, meaning that the code that first stores the box in a variable won't be linted against:
```rust
let boxed = Box::new([1, 2, 3]); // no lint
boxed.len();
```
lint: don't suggest MaybeUninit::assume_init for uninhabited types
Creating a zeroed uninhabited type such as `!` or an empty enum with `mem::zeroed()` (or transmuting `()` to `!`) currently triggers this lint:
```rs
warning: the type `!` does not permit zero-initialization
--> test.rs:5:23
|
5 | let _val: ! = mem::zeroed();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| this code causes undefined behavior when executed
| help: use `MaybeUninit<T>` instead, and only call `assume_init` after initialization is done
|
= note: the `!` type has no valid value
```
The `MaybeUninit` suggestion in the help message seems confusing/useless for uninhabited types, as such a type cannot be fully initialized in the first place (as the note implies).
This PR limits this help message to inhabited types which can be initialized
Emit warnings on unused parens in index expressions
Fixes: #96606.
I am not sure what the best term for "index expression" is. Is there a better term we could use?
