new lint: `eager_transmute`
A small but still hopefully useful lint that looks for patterns such as `(x < 5).then_some(transmute(x))`.
This is almost certainly wrong because it evaluates the transmute eagerly and can lead to surprises such as the check being completely removed and always evaluating to `Some` no matter what `x` is (it is UB after all when the integer is not a valid bitpattern for the transmuted-to type). [Example](https://godbolt.org/z/xoY34fPzh).
The user most likely meant to use `then` instead.
I can't remember where I saw this but this is inspired by a real bug that happened in practice.
This could probably be a correctness lint?
changelog: new lint: [`eager_int_transmute`]
New lints `iter_filter_is_some` and `iter_filter_is_ok`
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result` and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
Fixes#11843
PS, I also made some minor documentations fixes in a case where a double tick (`) was included.
---
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
Do not consider `async { (impl IntoFuture).await }` as redundant
changelog: [`redundant_async_block`]: do not trigger on `IntoFuture` instances
Fix#11959
Move `uninhabited_references` to `nursery`
I think this lint has too many false positives and should be put in pedantic. See #11984 and #11985 for context.
The lint is already in beta and is causing trouble for us, so I would also like this PR to be backported to beta as well.
changelog: Moved [`uninhabited_references`] to `nursery` (Now allow-by-default)
[#11997](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11997)
(Check if this has been backported)
Fixes#11984.
[`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
This fixes the false negative mentioned in #11993: the lint only used to check for `return` expressions, and not a statement containing a `return` expression (doesn't close the issue tho since there's still a useful suggestion that we could make, which is to suggest `.ok_or()?`/`.ok_or_else()?` for `else { return Err(..) }`)
changelog: [`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
fix typo in infinite loop lint
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: This fixes a small typo introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11829
Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9965.
When you have `to_string().split('a')` or equivalent, it'll suggest to remove the `to_owned`/`to_string` part.
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Check whether out of bound when access a known length array with a constant index
fixes [Issue#11762](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11762)
Issue#11762 points that `Array references with known length are not flagged when indexed out of bounds`.
To fix this problem, it is needed to add check for `Expr::Index`. We expand this issue include reference and direct accessing a array.
When we access a array with a constant index `off`, and already know the length `size`, if `off >= size`, these code will throw an error, instead rustc's lint checking them or runtime panic happening.
changelog: [`out_of_bound_indexing`]: Add check for illegal accessing known length array with a constant index
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result`
and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as
that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
New Lint: `result_filter_map` / Mirror of `option_filter_map`
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map`.
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
I had to move around some code because the function def was too long 🙃.
I have also added some pattern checks on `option_filter_map`
Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Currently, rustc `unconditional_recursion` doesn't detect cases like:
```rust
enum Foo {
A,
B,
}
impl PartialEq for Foo {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self == other
}
}
```
This is because the lint is currently implemented only for one level, and in the above code, `self == other` will then call `impl PartialEq for &T`, escaping from the detection. The fix for it seems to be a bit tricky (I started investigating potential solution to add one extra level of recursion [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...GuillaumeGomez:rust:trait-impl-recursion?expand=1) but completely broken at the moment).
I expect that this situation will remain for a while. In the meantime, I think it's acceptable to check it directly into clippy for the time being as a lot of easy cases like this one can be easily checked (next I plan to extend it to cover other traits like `ToString`).
changelog: Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map` to catch
```
.into_iter().filter(Result::is_ok).map(Result::unwrap)
```
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
Co-authored-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
Uplift `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind` to `rustc_type_ir`
Uplifts `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind`
I know I said I was just going to get rid of `TypeAndMut` (https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/124) but I think this is much simpler, lol
r? `@jackh726` or `@lcnr`
Fix binder handling in `unnecessary_to_owned`
fixes#11952
The use of `rebind` instead of `EarlyBinder::bind` isn't technically needed, but it is the semantically correct operation.
changelog: None
[`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses `()` for quoting
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses for quoting, e.g. `func()`.
---
Developers often write function/method names with trailing `()`, but `doc_markdown` lint did not consider that.
Old clippy suggestion was not very good:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (do() or `do_not`()).
```
New behavior recognizes function names such as `do()` even they contain no `_`/`::`; and backticks are suggested outside of the `()`:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (`do()` or `do_not()`).
```
Useless vec false positive
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: fix false positive in macros.
fixes#11861
We delay the emission of `useless_vec` lints to the check_crate_post stage, which allows us to effectively undo lints if we find that a `vec![]` expression is being used multiple times after macro expansion.
new lint to detect infinite loop
closes: #11438
changelog: add new lint to detect infinite loop
~*I'll change the lint name*~. Should I name it `infinite_loop` or `infinite_loops` is fine? Ahhhh, English is hard...
Renamings:
- find -> opt_hir_node
- get -> hir_node
- find_by_def_id -> opt_hir_node_by_def_id
- get_by_def_id -> hir_node_by_def_id
Fix rebase changes using removed methods
Use `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id()` whenever possible in compiler
Fix clippy errors
Fix compiler
Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Vadim Petrochenkov <vadim.petrochenkov@gmail.com>
Add FIXME for `tcx.hir()` returned type about its removal
Simplify with with `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id`
Add lint against ambiguous wide pointer comparisons
This PR is the resolution of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106447 decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717 by T-lang.
## `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of `*const/*mut ?Sized` as the operands.
### Example
```rust
let ab = (A, B);
let a = &ab.0 as *const dyn T;
let b = &ab.1 as *const dyn T;
let _ = a == b;
```
### Explanation
The comparison includes metadata which may not be expected.
-------
This PR also drops `clippy::vtable_address_comparisons` which is superseded by this one.
~~One thing: is the current naming right? `invalid` seems a bit too much.~~
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717
