needless_question_mark: don't lint if Some(..) is inside a macro def and the ? is not.
The suggestion would fail to apply.
Fixes#6921
changelog: needless_question_mark: don't lint if Some(..) is inside a macro def and the ? is not.
This change was done in #82436, as an "optimization". Unfortunately I
missed that this code is not always executed, because of the "continue"
in the conditional above it.
This commit should solve the perf regressions introduced by #82436 as I
think there isn't anything else that could affect runtime performance in
that PR. The `Pick` type grows only one word, which I doubt can cause up
to 8.8% increase in RSS in some of the benchmarks.
Implement String::remove_matches
Closes#50206.
I lifted the function help from `@frewsxcv's` original PR (#50015), hope they don't mind.
I'm also wondering whether it would be useful for `remove_matches` to collect up the removed substrings into a `Vec` and return them, right now they're just overwritten by the copy and lost.
make changes to liveness to use closure_min_captures
use different span
borrow check uses new structures
rename to CapturedPlace
stop using upvar_capture in regionck
remove the bridge
cleanup from rebase + remove the upvar_capture reference from mutability_errors.rs
remove line from livenes test
make our unused var checking more consistent
update tests
adding more warnings to the tests
move is_ancestor_or_same_capture to rustc_middle/ty
update names to reflect the closures
add FIXME
check that all captures are immutable borrows before returning
add surrounding if statement like the original
move var out of the loop and rename
Co-authored-by: Logan Mosier <logmosier@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Roxane Fruytier <roxane.fruytier@hotmail.com>
This is a continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project/pull/96
to continue to make progress on updating Rust's support for SIMD
intrinsics on WebAssembly to the latest version of the specification.
One of the examples used to say “this leads to a possibly confusing situation,
where the type of the closure is a double reference” while _actually_ referring to
the type of the closure _argument_.
Unlike the other cases of this lint, there's no simple way to detect if
an old version of the relevant crate (`syn`) is in use. The `actix-web`
crate only depends on `pin-project` v1.0.0, so checking the version of
`actix-web` does not guarantee that a new enough version of
`pin-project` (and therefore `syn`) is in use.
Instead, we rely on the fact that virtually all of the regressed crates
are pinned to a pre-1.0 version of `pin-project`. When this is the case,
bumping the `actix-web` dependency will pull in the *latest* version of
`pin-project`, which has an explicit dependency on a newer v dependency
on a newer version of `syn`.
The lint message tells users to update `actix-web`, since that's what
they're most likely to have control over. We could potentially tell them
to run `cargo update -p syn`, but I think it's more straightforward to
suggest an explicit change to the `Cargo.toml`
The `actori-web` fork had its last commit over a year ago, and appears
to just be a renamed fork of `actix-web`. Therefore, I've removed the
`actori-web` check entirely - any crates that actually get broken can
simply update `syn` themselves.
`match_wildcard` improvements
fixes: #6604fixes: #5733fixes: #6862#5733 is only fixed in the normal case, if different paths are used for the variants then the same problem will occur. It's cause by `def_path_str` returning an utterly useless result. I haven't dug into why yet.
For #6604 there should be some discussion before accepting this. It's easy enough to change the message rather than disable the lint for `Option` and `Result`.
changelog: Attempt to find a common path prefix for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
changelog: Don't lint op `Option` and `Result` for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
changelog: Consider `or` patterns and `Self` prefix for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
Don't show HTML diff if tidy isn't installed for rustdoc tests
The output without the `tidy` tool is just way too big to be of any use. It makes reading the error much more complicated.
r? ``@jyn514``
Allow registering tool lints with `register_tool`
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```rust
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66079#issuecomment-788589193, ``@chorman0773``
r? ``@petrochenkov``
ci/docker: Add SDK/NDK level 21 to android docker for 32bit platforms
Certain features of Linux (getauxval() and epoll_create1()) are only
available in android SDK/NDK levels 18 and 21 respectively. The 32bit
platform is currently on level 14 for compatibility with Android 4.0.
This patch adds SDK/NDK level 21 to the docker for 32 bit platforms,
while leaving the default setup at level 14.
With this done, projects such as `rustup` which rely on these dockers
can build with modern ecosystem crates such as tokio 1.0, by using
the level 21 toolchain, but those which do not need to switch will
be unaffected, since the level 14 toolchain remains available.
Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade`
We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this
crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer
depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as
it only exists to support very old Rust versions.
If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via
`procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning
until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack).
The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does work with the
latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more
trouble than it's worth.
While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was
never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in
`proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been
called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that
tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that
would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it
seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working.
The Crater issue is being discussed at
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661
Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we
haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken.
I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is
being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
Make source-based code coverage compatible with MIR inlining
When codegenning code coverage use the instance that coverage data was
originally generated for, to ensure basic level of compatibility with
MIR inlining.
Fixes#83061
Add more links between hash and btree collections
- Link from `core::hash` to `HashMap` and `HashSet`
- Link from HashMap and HashSet to the module-level documentation on
when to use the collection
- Link from several collections to Wikipedia articles on the general
concept
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81989#issuecomment-783920840.
