This adds back the raw_pointer_derive lint as a 'removed' lint, so that its removal does not cause errors (#30346) but warnings.
In the process I discovered regressions in the code for renamed and removed lints, which didn't appear to have any tests. The addition of a second lint pass (ast vs. hir) meant that attributes were being inspected twice, renamed and removed warnings printed twice. I restructured the code so these tests are only done once and added tests. Unfortunately it makes the patch more complicated for the needed beta backport.
r? @nikomatsakis
There is now more structure to the report, so that you can specify e.g. an RFC/PR/issue number and other explanatory details.
Example message:
```
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:14:8: 14:9 error: defaults for type parameters are only allowed on type definitions, like `struct` or `enum`
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:14 fn avg<T=i32>(_: T) {}
^
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:14:8: 14:9 warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:14:8: 14:9 note: for more information, see PR 30742 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/30724>
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:11:9: 11:28 note: lint level defined here
type-parameter-invalid-lint.rs:11 #![deny(future_incompatible)]
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
error: aborting due to previous error
```
r? @brson
I would really like feedback also on the specific messages!
Fixes#30746
It was recently realized that we accept defaulted type parameters everywhere, without feature gate, even though the only place that we really *intended* to accept them were on types. This PR adds a lint warning unless the "type-parameter-defaults" feature is enabled. This should eventually become a hard error.
This is a [breaking-change] in that new feature gates are required (or simply removing the defaults, which is probably a better choice as they have little effect at this time). Results of a [crater run][crater] suggest that approximately 5-15 crates are affected. I didn't do the measurement quite right so that run cannot distinguish "true" regressions from "non-root" regressions, but even the upper bound of 15 affected crates seems relatively minimal.
[crater]: https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/760c6a67698bd24253bf
cc @rust-lang/lang
r? @pnkfelix
nodes in statement position.
Extended #[cfg] folder to allow removal of statements, and
of expressions in optional positions like expression lists and trailing
block expressions.
Extended lint checker to recognize lint levels on expressions and
locals.
This PR turns statically known erroneous code (e.g. numeric overflow) into a warning and continues normal code-generation to emit the same code that would have been generated without `check_const` detecting that the result can be computed at compile-time.
<del>It's not done yet, as I don't know how to properly emit a lint from trans. I can't seem to extract the real lint level of the item the erroneous expression is in.</del> It's an unconditional warning now.
r? @pnkfelix
cc @nikomatsakis
* [RFC 1229 text](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1229-compile-time-asserts.md)
* RFC PR: rust-lang/rfcs#1229
* tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28238
[breaking-change] for lint authors
You must now implement LateLintPass or EarlyLintPass as well as LintPass and use either register_late_lint_pass or register_early_lint_pass, rather than register_lint_pass.
There is a minor [breaking-change] for lint authors - some functions which were previously defined on `lint::Context` have moved to a trait - `LintContext`, you may need to import that trait to avoid name resolution errors.
