This lint adds warning if types are redundantly repeated in trait bounds i.e. `T: Copy, T: Clone` instead of `T: Copy + Clone`. This is a late pass trait lint and has necessitated the addition of code to allow hashing of TyKinds without taking into account Span information.
Move the method checking into a new lint called
`redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group.
This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest.
cc #3942
* Late Lint pass, catches:
* One liner: 0 -> null -> transmute
* One liner: std:null() -> transmute
* Const (which resolves to null) -> transmute
* UI Test case for Lint
* Updated test for issue 3849, because now the lint that code generated is in Clippy.
* Expanded `const.rs` miri-based Constant Folding code, to cover
raw pointers
* Ran automatic naming update
* Formalized rename of `cyclomatic_complexity` to `cognitive_complexity`
** Added the rename to `lib.rs`
** Added rename test
* Added warning for deprecated key `cyclomatic_complexity_threshold` and tests for it
* Added deprecation status for Clippy's builtin attribute
* Updated tests for new builtin attribute renaming
**What it does:** Checks for generics with `std::ops::Drop` as bounds.
**Why is this bad?** `Drop` bounds do not really accomplish anything.
A type may have compiler-generated drop glue without implementing the
`Drop` trait itself. The `Drop` trait also only has one method,
`Drop::drop`, and that function is by fiat not callable in user code.
So there is really no use case for using `Drop` in trait bounds.
**Known problems:** None.
**Example:**
```rust
fn foo<T: Drop>() {}
```
