Fix `SAFETY` comment tag casing in undocumented_unsafe_blocks
This changes the lint introduced in #7748 to suggest adding a `SAFETY` comment instead of a `Safety` comment.
Searching for `// Safety:` in rust-lang/rust yields 67 results while `// SAFETY:` yields 1072.
I think it's safe to say that this comment tag is written in upper case, just like `TODO`, `FIXME` and so on are. As such I would expect this lint to follow the official convention as well.
Note that I intentionally introduced some casing diversity in `tests/ui/undocumented_unsafe_blocks.rs` to test more cases than just `Safety:`.
changelog: Capitalize `SAFETY` comment in [`undocumented_unsafe_blocks`]
Don't emit RETURN_SELF_NOT_MUST_USE lint if `Self` already is marked as `#[must_use]`
New bug discovered with this lint. Hopefully, this is the last one.
---
changelog: none
Ensure that RETURN_SELF_NOT_MUST_USE is not emitted if the method already has `#[must_use]`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8140.
---
Edit:
changelog: none
(The lint is not in beta yet, this should therefore not be included inside the changelog :) )
Tweak errors coming from `for`-loop, `?` and `.await` desugaring
* Suggest removal of `.await` on non-`Future` expression
* Keep track of obligations introduced by desugaring
* Remove span pointing at method for obligation errors coming from desugaring
* Point at called local sync `fn` and suggest making it `async`
```
error[E0277]: `()` is not a future
--> $DIR/unnecessary-await.rs:9:10
|
LL | boo().await;
| -----^^^^^^ `()` is not a future
| |
| this call returns `()`
|
= help: the trait `Future` is not implemented for `()`
help: do not `.await` the expression
|
LL - boo().await;
LL + boo();
|
help: alternatively, consider making `fn boo` asynchronous
|
LL | async fn boo () {}
| +++++
```
Fix#66731.
Stabilize asm! and global_asm!
Tracking issue: #72016
It's been almost 2 years since the original [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2850) was posted and we're finally ready to stabilize this feature!
The main changes in this PR are:
- Removing `asm!` and `global_asm!` from the prelude as per the decision in #87228.
- Stabilizing the `asm` and `global_asm` features.
- Removing the unstable book pages for `asm` and `global_asm`. The contents are moved to the [reference](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1105) and [rust by example](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-by-example/pull/1483).
- All links to these pages have been removed to satisfy the link checker. In a later PR these will be replaced with links to the reference or rust by example.
- Removing the automatic suggestion for using `llvm_asm!` instead of `asm!` if you're still using the old syntax, since it doesn't work anymore with `asm!` no longer being in the prelude. This only affects code that predates the old LLVM-style `asm!` being renamed to `llvm_asm!`.
- Updating `stdarch` and `compiler-builtins`.
- Updating all the tests.
r? `@joshtriplett`
Add new lint to warn when #[must_use] attribute should be used on a method
This lint is somewhat similar to https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#must_use_candidate but also different: it emits a warning by default and only targets methods (so not functions nor associated functions).
Someone suggested it to me after this tweet: https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1466439813230477312
I think it would reduce the number of cases of API misuses quite a lot.
What do you think?
---
changelog: Added new [`return_self_not_must_use`] lint
Ignore associated types in traits when considering type complexity
changelog: Ignore associated types in traits when checking ``[`type_complexity`]`` lint.
fixes#1013
Fix bad suggestion on `option_if_let_else` when there is complex subpat
closes#7991
Prefer not warning any complex subpat in `option_if_let_else` rather than suggesting obscure suggestions.
changelog: [`option_if_let_else`] does not warn when complex subpat is present
Parenthesize blocks in `needless_bool` suggestion
Because the `if .. {}` statement already puts the condition in expression scope, contained blocks would be parsed as complete
statements, so any `&` binary expression whose left operand ended in a block would lead to a non-compiling suggestion.
We identify such expressions and add parentheses. Note that we don't make a difference between normal and unsafe blocks because the parsing problems are the same for both.
This fixes#8052.
---
changelog: none
Because the `if .. {}` statement already puts the condition in
expression scope, contained blocks would be parsed as complete
statements, so any `&` binary expression whose left operand ended in a
block would lead to a non-compiling suggestion.
This adds a visitor to identify such expressions and add parentheses.
This fixes#8052.
Consider NonNull as a pointer type
PR 1/2 for issue #8045. Add `NonNull` as a pointer class to suppress false positives like `UnsafeCell<NonNull<()>>`. However, this change is not sufficient to handle the cases shared in gtk-rs and Rug in the issue.
changelog: none
r? `@xFrednet`
