`unwrap_or_else_default` -> `unwrap_or_default` and improve resulting lint
Resolves#10080 (though it doesn't implement exactly what's described there)
This PR does the following:
1. Merges `unwrap_or_else_default.rs`'s code into `or_fun_call.rs`
2. Extracts the code to handle `unwrap_or(/* default value */)` and similar, and moves it into `unwrap_or_else_default`
3. Implements the missing functionality from #9342, e.g.,, to handle `or_insert_with(Default::default)`
4. Renames `unwrap_or_else_default` to `unwrap_or_default` (since the "new" lint handles both `unwrap_or` and `unwrap_or_else`, it seemed sensible to use the shortened name)
This PR is currently two commits. The first implements 1-3, the second implements 4.
A word about 2: the `or_fun_call` lint currently produces warnings like the following:
```
error: use of `unwrap_or` followed by a call to `new`
--> $DIR/or_fun_call.rs:56:14
|
LL | with_new.unwrap_or(Vec::new());
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try: `unwrap_or_default()`
```
To me, such warnings look like they should come from `unwrap_or_else_default`, not `or_fun_call`, especially since `or_fun_call` is [in the nursery](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9829).
---
changelog: Move: Renamed `unwrap_or_else_default` to [`unwrap_or_default`]
[#10120](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10120)
changelog: Enhancement: [`unwrap_or_default`]: Now handles more functions, like `or_insert_with`
[#10120](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10120)
<!-- changelog_checked-->
check that the types are equal in `SpanlessEq::eq_expr`
Fixes#11213
changelog: [`if_same_then_else`]: don't lint for integer literals of different types
Refactor some of `dereference.rs` to util functions
I've seen a few lints that need to be able to tell if changing the type of an expression would be a vaild suggestion. This extracts part of how that's done from `explicit_auto_deref`.
changelog: None
Fix async functions handling for `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` lint
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11179.
The problem with async is that "internals" are actually inside a closure from the `ExprUseVisitor` point of view, meaning we need to actually run the check on the closures' body as well.
changelog: none
r? `@llogiq`
Make `comparison_to_empty` work on `if let`/`let` chains
This adds `LetChain` to `clippy_utils::higher`, other lints may benefit from such a change as well :D
changelog: Enhancement: [`comparison_to_empty`]: Now lints on `if let`
Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1
Fixes#108655. I think this is the most obvious solution that isn't overly complicated. The comment includes more justification, but I think this is likely better than demoting the `#[inline(always)]` to `#[inline]`, since existing code is unaffected.
[`unused_async`]: don't lint if paths reference async fn without immediate call
Fixes#9695Fixes#9359
Clippy shouldn't lint unused `async` if there are paths referencing them if that path isn't the receiver of a function call, because that means that the function might be passed to some other function:
```rs
async fn f() {} // No await statements, so unused at this point
fn requires_fn_future<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: fn() -> F) {}
requires_fn_future(f); // `f`'s asyncness is actually not unused.
```
(This isn't limited to just passing the function as a parameter to another function, it could also first be stored in a variable and later passed to another function as an argument)
This requires delaying the linting until post-crate and collecting path references to local async functions along the way.
changelog: [`unused_async`]: don't lint if paths reference async fn that require asyncness
Support interpolated block for `try` and `async`
I'm putting this up for T-lang discussion, to decide whether or not they feel like this should be supported. This was raised in #112952, which surprised me. There doesn't seem to be a *technical* reason why we don't support this.
### Precedent:
This is supported:
```rust
macro_rules! always {
($block:block) => {
if true $block
}
}
fn main() {
always!({});
}
```
### Counterpoint:
However, for context, this is *not* supported:
```rust
macro_rules! unsafe_block {
($block:block) => {
unsafe $block
}
}
fn main() {
unsafe_block!({});
}
```
If this support for `async` and `try` with interpolated blocks is *not* desirable, then I can convert them to instead the same diagnostic as `unsafe $block` and make this situation a lot less ambiguous.
----
I'll try to write up more before T-lang triage on Tuesday. I couldn't find anything other than #69760 for why something like `unsafe $block` is not supported, and even that PR doesn't have much information.
Fixes#112952
Remove Scope::Elision from bound-vars resolution.
This scope is a remnant of HIR-based lifetime resolution.
It's only role was to ensure that object lifetime resolution falled back to `'static`. This can be done using `ObjectLifetimeDefault` scope.
Get rid of subst-relate incompleteness in new solver
We shouldn't need subst-relate if we have bidirectional-normalizes-to in the new solver.
The only potential issue may happen if we have an unconstrained projection like `<Wrapper<?0> as Trait>::Assoc == <Wrapper<T> as Trait>::Assoc` where they both normalize to something that doesn't mention any substs, which would possibly prefer `?0 = T` if we fall back to subst-relate. But I'd prefer if we remove incompleteness until we can determine some case where we need them, and the bidirectional-normalizes-to seems better to have in general.
I can update https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/26 and https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/25 once this lands.
r? `@lcnr`
Tweak spans for self arg, fix borrow suggestion for signature mismatch
1. Adjust a suggestion message that was annoying me
2. Fix#112503 by recording the right spans for the `self` part of the `&self` 0th argument
3. Remove the suggestion for adjusting a trait signature on type mismatch, bc that's gonna probably break all the other impls of the trait even if it fixes its one usage 😅
Reuse the MIR validator for MIR inlining
Instead of having the inliner home-cook its own validation, we just check that the substituted MIR body passes the regular validation.
The MIR validation is first split in two: control flow validation (MIR syntax and CFG invariants) and type validation (subtyping relationship in assignments and projections). Only the latter can be affected by instantiating type parameters.
