* Delay the parsing of the use node
* Mark when the `SyntaxContext` changes rather than return `None`
* Return a default value if the HIR tree is broken rather than `None`
Make `for_each_expr` visit closures by default, rename the old version `for_each_expr_without_closures`
A lot of the time `for_each_expr` is picked when closures should be visited so I think it makes sense for this to be the default with the alternative available for when you don't need to visit them.
The first commit renames `for_each_expr` to `for_each_expr_without_closures` and `for_each_expr_with_closures` to `for_each_expr`
The second commit switches a few uses that I caught over to include closures to fix a few bugs
changelog: none
The `restriction` group contains many lints which are not about
necessarily “bad” things, but style choices — perhaps even style choices
which contradict conventional Rust style — or are otherwise very
situational. This results in silly wording like “Why is this bad?
It isn't, but ...”, which I’ve seen confuse a newcomer at least once.
To improve this situation, this commit replaces the “Why is this bad?”
section heading with “Why restrict this?”, for most, but not all,
restriction lints. I left alone the ones whose placement in the
restriction group is more incidental.
In order to make this make sense, I had to remove the “It isn't, but”
texts from the contents of the sections. Sometimes further changes
were needed, or there were obvious fixes to make, and I went ahead
and made those changes without attempting to split them into another
commit, even though many of them are not strictly necessary for the
“Why restrict this?” project.
Allow `cast` lints in macros
closes: #11738
Removed the `from_expansion` guard clause for cast lints, so that these warnings can be generated for internal macros.
changelog: allow `cast` lints in macros
new lint `legacy_numeric_constants`
Rework of #10997
- uses diagnostic items
- does not lint imports of the float modules (`use std::f32`)
- does not lint usage of float constants that look like `f32::MIN`
I chose to make the float changes because the following pattern is actually pretty useful
```rust
use std::f32;
let omega = freq * 2 * f32::consts::PI;
```
and the float modules are not TBD-deprecated like the integer modules.
Closes#10995
---
changelog: New lint [`legacy_numeric_constants`]
[#12312](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12312)
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
Fix infinite loop in `cast_sign_loss` when peeling unwrap method calls
Fixes#12506
The lint wants to peel method calls but didn't actually reassign the expression, leading to an infinite loop.
----
changelog: Fix infinite loop in [`cast_sign_loss`] when having two chained `.unwrap()` calls
If the whole cast expression is a unary expression (`(*x as T)`) or an
addressof expression (`(&x as T)`), then not surrounding the suggestion
into a block risks us changing the precedence of operators if the cast
expression is followed by an operation with higher precedence than the
unary operator (`(*x as T).foo()` would become `*x.foo()`, which changes
what the `*` applies on).
The same is true if the expression encompassing the cast expression is a
unary expression or an addressof expression.
The lint supports the latter case, but missed the former one. This PR
fixes that.
Fixes#11968
Fix sign-handling bugs and false negatives in `cast_sign_loss`
**Note: anyone should feel free to move this PR forward, I might not see notifications from reviewers.**
changelog: [`cast_sign_loss`]: Fix sign-handling bugs and false negatives
This PR fixes some arithmetic bugs and false negatives in PR #11883 (and maybe earlier PRs).
Cc `@J-ZhengLi`
I haven't updated the tests yet. I was hoping for some initial feedback before adding tests to cover the cases listed below.
Here are the issues I've attempted to fix:
#### `abs()` can return a negative value in release builds
Example:
```rust
i32::MIN.abs()
```
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2021&gist=022d200f9ef6ee72f629c0c9c1af11b8
Docs: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.abs
Other overflows that produce negative values could cause false negatives (and underflows could produce false positives), but they're harder to detect.
#### Values with uncertain signs can be positive or negative
Any number of values with uncertain signs cause the whole expression to have an uncertain sign, because an uncertain sign can be positive or negative.
Example (from UI tests):
```rust
fn main() {
foo(a: i32, b: i32, c: i32) -> u32 {
(a * b * c * c) as u32
//~^ ERROR: casting `i32` to `u32` may lose the sign of the value
}
println!("{}", foo(1, -1, 1));
}
```
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=165d2e2676ee8343b1b9fe60db32aadd
#### Handle `expect()` the same way as `unwrap()`
Since we're ignoring `unwrap()` we might as well do the same with `expect()`.
This doesn't seem to have tests but I'm happy to add some like `Some(existing_test).unwrap() as u32`.
#### A negative base to an odd exponent is guaranteed to be negative
An integer `pow()`'s sign is only uncertain when its operants are uncertain. (Ignoring overflow.)
Example:
```rust
((-2_i32).pow(3) * -2) as u32
```
This offsets some of the false positives created by one or more uncertain signs producing an uncertain sign. (Rather than just an odd number of uncertain signs.)
#### Both sides of a multiply or divide should be peeled recursively
I'm not sure why the lhs was peeled recursively, and the rhs was left intact. But the sign of any sequence of multiplies and divides is determined by the signs of its operands. (Ignoring overflow.)
I'm not sure what to use as an example here, because most expressions I want to use are const-evaluable.
But if `p()` is [a non-const function that returns a positive value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.isqrt), and if the lint handles unary negation, these should all lint:
```rust
fn peel_all(x: i32) {
(-p(x) * -p(x) * -p(x)) as u32;
((-p(x) * -p(x)) * -p(x)) as u32;
(-p(x) * (-p(x) * -p(x))) as u32;
}
```
#### The right hand side of a Rem doesn't change the sign
Unlike Mul and Div,
> Given remainder = dividend % divisor, the remainder will have the same sign as the dividend.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions/operator-expr.html#arithmetic-and-logical-binary-operators
I'm not sure what to use as an example here, because most expressions I want to use are const-evaluable.
But if `p()` is [a non-const function that returns a positive value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.isqrt), and if the lint handles unary negation, only the first six expressions should lint.
The expressions that start with a constant should lint (or not lint) regardless of whether the lint supports `p()` or unary negation, because only the dividend's sign matters.
Example:
```rust
fn rem_lhs(x: i32) {
(-p(x) % -1) as u32;
(-p(x) % 1) as u32;
(-1 % -p(x)) as u32;
(-1 % p(x)) as u32;
(-1 % -x) as u32;
(-1 % x) as u32;
// These shouldn't lint:
(p(x) % -1) as u32;
(p(x) % 1) as u32;
(1 % -p(x)) as u32;
(1 % p(x)) as u32;
(1 % -x) as u32;
(1 % x) as u32;
}
```
#### There's no need to bail on other expressions
When peeling, any other operators or expressions can be left intact and sent to the constant evaluator.
If these expressions can be evaluated, this offsets some of the false positives created by one or more uncertain signs producing an uncertain sign. If not, they end up marked as having uncertain sign.
