Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
- Move MISSING_CRATE_LEVEL_DOCS to rustdoc directly
- Update documentation
This also takes the opportunity to make the `no-crate-level-doc-lint`
test more specific.
- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
This allows a build system to indicate a location in its own dependency
specification files (eg Cargo's `Cargo.toml`) which can be reported
along side any unused crate dependency.
This supports several types of location:
- 'json' - provide some json-structured data, which is included in the json diagnostics
in a `tool_metadata` field
- 'raw' - emit the provided string into the output. This also appears as a json string in
`tool_metadata`.
If no `--extern-location` is explicitly provided then a default json entry of the form
`"tool_metadata":{"name":<cratename>,"path":<cratepath>}` is emitted.
introduce future-compatibility warning for forbidden lint groups
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit it to take effect.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed
in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where
a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group
is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit
it to take effect.
cc #79813
This PR adds an allow-by-default future-compatibility lint
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS`. It fires when a trailing semicolon in a
macro body is ignored due to the macro being used in expression
position:
```rust
macro_rules! foo {
() => {
true; // WARN
}
}
fn main() {
let val = match true {
true => false,
_ => foo!()
};
}
```
The lint takes its level from the macro call site, and
can be allowed for a particular macro by adding
`#[allow(semicolon_in_expressions_from_macros)]`.
The lint is set to warn for all internal rustc crates (when being built
by a stage1 compiler). After the next beta bump, we can enable
the lint for the bootstrap compiler as well.
It's not an internal lint:
- It's not in the rustc::internal lint group
- It's on unconditionally, because it actually lints `staged_api`, not
the compiler
This fixes a bug where `#[deny(rustc::internal)]` would warn that
`rustc::internal` was an unknown lint.
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Recognize `private_intra_doc_links` as a lint
Previously, trying to allow this would give another error!
```
warning: unknown lint: `private_intra_doc_links`
--> private.rs:1:10
|
1 | #![allow(private_intra_doc_links)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `broken_intra_doc_links`
|
= note: `#[warn(unknown_lints)]` on by default
warning: public documentation for `DocMe` links to private item `DontDocMe`
--> private.rs:2:11
|
2 | /// docs [DontDocMe]
| ^^^^^^^^^ this item is private
|
= note: `#[warn(private_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
= note: this link will resolve properly if you pass `--document-private-items`
```
Fixes the issue found in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77249#issuecomment-712339227.
r? ````````@Manishearth````````
Does anyone know why this additional step is necessary? It seems weird this has to be declared in 3 different places.
Previously, trying to allow this would give another error!
```
warning: unknown lint: `private_intra_doc_links`
--> private.rs:1:10
|
1 | #![allow(private_intra_doc_links)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `broken_intra_doc_links`
|
= note: `#[warn(unknown_lints)]` on by default
warning: public documentation for `DocMe` links to private item `DontDocMe`
--> private.rs:2:11
|
2 | /// docs [DontDocMe]
| ^^^^^^^^^ this item is private
|
= note: `#[warn(private_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
= note: this link will resolve properly if you pass `--document-private-items`
```
