redundant_locals: fix FPs on mutated shadows
Fixes#11290.
When a mutable binding is shadowed by
a mutable binding of the same name in a different scope, mutations in that scope have different meaning.
This PR fixes spurious `redundant_locals` emissions on such locals.
cc `@Centri3,` `@flip1995`
changelog: [`redundant_locals`]: fix false positives on mutated shadows
Rustup
r? `@ghost`
cc `@max-niederman` With the latest sync, I'm getting a lot of FP in the `redundant_locals` lint you recently added. Any ideas where this could come from?
changelog: none
When a mutable binding is shadowed by
a mutable binding of the same name in a different scope,
mutations in that scope have different meaning.
This commit fixes spurious `redundant_locals` emissions
on such locals.
[`filter_map_bool_then`]: Don't ICE on late bound regions
Fixes#11309
Also lints `&NonCopy` now, since any `&` is `Copy`. That was accidental, but it seems that this is a consequence (or improvement!) of this fix.
r? `@Jarcho`
changelog: [`filter_map_bool_then`]: Don't ICE on late bound regions
[`slow_vector_initialization`]: clarify why `Vec::new()` + resize is worse
#11198 extended this lint to also warn on `Vec::new()` + `resize(0, len)`, but did not update the lint documentation, so it left some confused (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/10938#issuecomment-1663880083).
This PR should make it a bit more clear. (cc `@djc` `@vi` what do you think about this?)
<details>
<summary>More details</summary>
Godbolt for `Vec::new()` + `.resize(x, 0)`: https://godbolt.org/z/e7q9xc9rG
The resize call first does a normal allocation (`__rust_alloc`):
```asm
alloc::raw_vec::finish_grow:
...
cmp qword ptr [rcx + 8], 0
je .LBB1_7 ; if capacity == 0 -> LBB1_7
.LBB1_7:
...
call qword ptr [rip + __rust_alloc@GOTPCREL]
```
*Then* a memset for zero initialization:
```asm
example::f:
...
xor esi, esi ; 0
call qword ptr [rip + memset@GOTPCREL]
```
------------
Godbolt for `vec![0; len]`: https://godbolt.org/z/M3vr53vWY
Important bit:
```asm
example::f:
...
call qword ptr [rip + __rust_alloc_zeroed@GOTPCREL]
```
</details>
changelog: [`slow_vector_initialization`]: clarify why `Vec::new()` + resize is worse than `vec![0; len]`
[`redundant_guards`]: don't lint on float literals
Fixes#11304
changelog: [`redundant_guards`]: don't lint on float literals
r? `@Centri3` i figured you are probably a good reviewer for this since you implemented the lint ^^
Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
redundant_type_annotations: only pass certain def kinds to type_of
Fixes#11190Fixesrust-lang/rust#113516
Also adds an `is_lint_allowed` check to skip the lint when it's not needed
changelog: none
New lints: `impossible_comparisons` and `redundant_comparisons`
Inspired by a bug we had in production, like all good lints ;)
Adds two lints for "double" comparisons, specifically when the same expression is being compared against two different constants.
`impossible_comparisons` checks for expressions that can never be true at all. Example:
```rust
status_code <= 400 && status_code > 500
```
Presumably, the programmer intended to write `status_code >= 400 && status_code < 500` in this case.
`redundant_comparisons` checks for expressions where either half has no effect. Example:
```rust
status_code <= 400 && status_code < 500
```
Works with other literal types like floats and strings, and *some* cases where the constant is more complex than a literal, see the tests for more.
**Limitations and/or future work:**
* Doesn't work if the LHS can have side-effects at all, for example by being a function call
* Only works for exactly two comparison expressions, so `x > y && x > z && x < w` won't get checked
* Doesn't check for comparison expressions combined with `||`. Very similar logic could be applied there.
changelog: New lints [`impossible_comparisons`] and [`redundant_comparisons`]
Add documentation to has_deref
Documentation of `has_deref` needed some polish to be more clear about where it should be used and what's it's purpose.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114401
r? `@RalfJung`
Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
Lots of tiny incremental simplifications of `EmitterWriter` internals
ignore the first commit, it's https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114088 squashed and rebased, but it's needed to use to use `derive_setters`, as they need a newer `syn` version.
Then this PR starts out with removing many arguments that are almost always defaulted to `None` or `false` and replace them with builder methods that can set these fields in the few cases that want to set them.
After that it's one commit after the other that removes or merges things until everything becomes some very simple trait objects
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
Perform OpaqueCast field projection on HIR, too.
fixes#105819
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99806 for when and why we added OpaqueCast to MIR.
Add `internal_features` lint
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/596
Also requires some more test blessing for codegen tests etc
`@jyn514` had the idea of just `allow`ing the lint by default in the test suite. I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, but it's definitely one worth considering. Additional input encouraged.
