* "AccessKit" is a commonly used accessibility toolkit used in Rust GUIs.
* "CoreFoundation", "CoreGraphics", "CoreText" are frameworks on Apple OSes.
* "Direct2D", "Direct3D", "DirectWrite" are frameworks on Windows
* "PostScript" is a programming language and is mentioned when talking about
text and vector graphics.
* "OpenAL" is an audio framework / API.
* "OpenType" is a font format (TrueType is already mentioned).
* "WebRTC", "WebSocket", "WebTransport" are web networking technologies.
* "NetBSD" and "OpenBSD" are like the already included FreeBSD.
Fix and rename `overflow_check_conditional`
fixes#2457
Other changes:
* Limit the lint to unsigned types.
* Actually check if the operands are the same rather than using only the first part of the path.
* Allow the repeated expression to be anything as long as there are no side effects.
changelog: Rename `overflow_check_conditional` to `panicking_overflow_check` and move to `correctness`
Fix guidance of [`float_cmp`] and [`float_cmp_const`] to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Using `f32::EPSILON` or `f64::EPSILON` as the floating-point equality comparison error margin is incorrect, yet `float_cmp` has until now recommended this be done. This change fixes the given guidance (both in docs and compiler hints) to not reference these unsuitable constants.
Instead, the guidance now clarifies that the scenarios in which an absolute error margin is usable, provides a sample implementation for using a user-defined absolute error margin (as an absolute error margin can only be used-defined and may be different for different comparisons) and references the floating point guide for a reference implementation of relative error based equality comparison for cases where absolute error margins cannot be identified.
changelog: [`float_cmp`] Fix guidance to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
changelog: [`float_cmp_const`] Fix guidance to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Fixes#6816
Lintcheck: Refactor structs and only take one version per crate
For some time now I had the feeling that lintcheck's main file has been too large. This PR simply moves some structs into new submodules.
I've also changed the `.toml` structure slightly to only accept one version per crate. AFAIK, we haven't use multiple versions before. If we want to test different versions, we can simply just add a second entry. That's what lintcheck does internally anyways.
I wanted to have these changes in separate commits, but then accidentally squashed them... So sorry 😅
---
r? `@Alexendoo` If you think this is not really worth a proper review, since it's mostly a move refactoring in an internal tool, you can also `r=xFrednet` on this PR.
changelog: none
This lint makes Clippy warn about situations where an owned
struct is essentially recreated by moving all its fields into a
new instance of the struct. Until now this lint only triggered
for structs recreated from a base struct.
NB: The new functionality too will cause false positives for the
situation where a non-copy struct consisting of all copy members
is touched again in subsequent code.
Using `f32::EPSILON` or `f64::EPSILON` as the floating-point equality comparison error margin is incorrect, yet `float_cmp` has until now recommended this be done. This change fixes the given guidance (both in docs and compiler hints) to not reference these unsuitable constants.
Instead, the guidance now clarifies that the scenarios in which an absolute error margin is usable, provides a reference implementation of using a user-defined absolute error margin (as an absolute error margin can only be used-defined and may be different for different comparisons) and references the floating point guide for a reference implementation of relative error based equaltiy comparison for when absolute error margin cannot be used.
changelog: Fix guidance of [`float_cmp`] and [`float_cmp_const`] to not incorrectly recommend `f64::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Fixes#6816
Remove internal `compiler_lint_functions` lint
This internal lint has effectively been superseded by `disallowed_methods` when we started using that in #11811 (I didn't even know that we also had this internal lint at the time of when I created that PR).
Some of the methods that this looks for also don't exist anymore (`span_lint_note` and `span_lint_help`), though there was one that that lint had but wasn't disallowed in clippy.toml (`LintContext::lint`)
changelog: none
Refactor `assigning_clones`
Short list of changes:
* Inline and simplify `extract_call`
* Inline `is_ok_to_suggest`
* Inline `skip_drop_block`
* Check the HIR tree before the macro check
* Don't call `outer_expn_data`
* Use `find` instead of a loop in `clone_source_borrows_from_dest`
changelog: none
`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`: Trigger lint also for scrutinees in `while let` and `if let`
This lint should also work for `if let` and `while let`, so this PR makes it actually work.
For `while let`, I can't think of any reason why this lint shouldn't be enabled. The only problem is that the lint suggests moving the significant drop above the `while let`, which is clearly invalid in the case of `while let`. I don't know if this is fixable, but this PR simply disables the wrong suggestions.
For `if let`, it seems that another lint called `if_let_mutex` has some overlapping functionality. But `significant_drop_in_scrutinee` is a bit stricter, as it will trigger even if the `else` branch does not try to lock the same mutex.
changelog: [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`]: Trigger lint also for scrutinees in `while let` and `if let`.
r? `@blyxyas` (the third PR as promised in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12740#issuecomment-2094876350, thanks for your review!)
Reduce the size of lintcheck JSON output
Saves about 80% of the size by picking out what we need rather than serialising the whole diagnostic
r? `@xFrednet`
changelog: none
[`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix FP when arg ty is impl trait alias ty
closes: #13009
---
changelog: [`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix FP when arg ty is impl trait alias ty
Mark format! with must_use hint
Uses unstable feature https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94745
Part of #126475
First contribution to rust, please let me know if the blessing of tests is correct
Thanks `@bjorn3` for the help
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126841 ([`macro_metavar_expr_concat`] Add support for literals)
- #126881 (Make `NEVER_TYPE_FALLBACK_FLOWING_INTO_UNSAFE` a deny-by-default lint in edition 2024)
- #126921 (Give VaList its own home)
- #127367 (Run alloc sync tests)
- #127431 (Use field ident spans directly instead of the full field span in diagnostics on local fields)
- #127437 (Uplift trait ref is knowable into `rustc_next_trait_solver`)
- #127439 (Uplift elaboration into `rustc_type_ir`)
- #127451 (Improve `run-make/output-type-permutations` code and improve `filename_not_in_denylist` API)
- #127452 (Fix intrinsic const parameter counting with `effects`)
- #127459 (rustdoc-json: add type/trait alias tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
