Serialize dependency graph directly from DepGraph
Reduce memory usage by serializing dep graph directly from `DepGraph`,
rather than copying it into `SerializedDepGraph` and serializing that.
Fix `unused_unsafe` label with `unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn
Previously, the following code:
```rust
#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn foo() {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
unsafe fn unsf() {}
```
Would give the following warning:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
4 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
which doesn't point out that the block is in an `unsafe fn`.
Tracking issue: #71668
cc #79208
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..`
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves#78511.
r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
Stability oddity with const intrinsics
cc `@RalfJung`
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80699#discussion_r551495670 `@usbalbin` realized we accepted some intrinsics as `const` without a `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attribute. I did some digging, and that example works because intrinsics inherit their stability from their parents... including `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attributes. While we may want to fix that (not sure, wasn't there just a MCPed PR that caused this on purpose?), we definitely want tests for it, thus this PR adding tests and some fun tracing statements.
Add track_caller to .steal()
Before:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to read from stolen value', /home/joshua/rustc/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/steal.rs:43:15
```
After:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to steal from stolen value', compiler/rustc_mir/src/transform/mod.rs:423:25
```
r? `@lcnr`
Initialize a few variables directly
Currently they are declared as `mut`, get initialized to a default value, and
then possibly overwritten.
By initializing to the final value directly, they don't need to be `mut` and
it's clear that they don't get mutated elsewhere later on.
Use PlaceRef projection abstractions more consistently in rustc_mir
PlaceRef contains abstractions for dealing with the `projections` array. This PR uses these abstractions more consistently within the `rustc_mir` crate.
See associated issue: rust-lang/rust#80647.
r? `@RalfJung`
Don't make tools responsible for checking unknown and renamed lints
Previously, clippy (and any other tool emitting lints) had to have their
own separate UNKNOWN_LINTS pass, because the compiler assumed any tool
lint could be valid. Now, as long as any lint starting with the tool
prefix exists, the compiler will warn when an unknown lint is present.
This may interact with the unstable `tool_lint` feature, which I don't entirely understand, but it will take the burden off those external tools to add their own lint pass, which seems like a step in the right direction to me.
- Don't mark `ineffective_unstable_trait_impl` as an internal lint
- Use clippy's more advanced lint suggestions
- Deprecate the `UNKNOWN_CLIPPY_LINTS` pass (and make it a no-op)
- Say 'unknown lint `clippy::x`' instead of 'unknown lint x'
This is tested by existing clippy tests. When https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80527 merges, it will also be tested in rustdoc tests. AFAIK there is no way to test this with rustc directly.
Before:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to read from stolen value', /home/joshua/rustc/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/steal.rs:43:15
```
After:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to steal from stolen value', compiler/rustc_mir/src/transform/mod.rs:423:25
```
Use Option::unwrap_or instead of open-coding it
r? ```@oli-obk``` Noticed this while we were talking about the other PR just now 😆
```@rustbot``` modify labels +C-cleanup +T-compiler
