make sure the msrv for `const_raw_ptr_deref` is met when linting [`missing_const_for_fn`]
fixes: #8864
---
changelog: make sure the msrv for `const_ptr_deref` is met when linting [`missing_const_for_fn`]
Fix `FormatArgs` storage when `-Zthreads` > 1
Fixes#11886
The initial way I thought of was a little gross so I never opened a PR for it, I thought of a nicer way today that no longer involves any `thread_local`s or `static`s
`rustc_data_strucutres::sync::{Lrc, OnceLock}` implement `DynSend` + `DynSync` so we can pass them to the lint passes that need the storage
changelog: none
r? `@flip1995`
This adds a `àllow-useless-vec-in-test` configuration which, when set
to `true` will allow the `useless_vec` lint in `#[test]` functions and
code within `#[cfg(test)]`. It also moves a `is_in_test` helper to
`clippy_utils`.
fix [`large_stack_arrays`] linting in `vec` macro
fixes: #12586
this PR also adds a wrapper function `matching_root_macro_call` to `clippy_utils::macros`, considering how often that same pattern appears in the codebase.
(I'm always very indecisive towards naming, so, if anyone have better idea of how that function should be named, feel free to suggest it)
---
changelog: fix [`large_stack_arrays`] linting in `vec` macro; add `matching_root_macro_call` to clippy_utils
Fix `is_test_module_or_function`
The rustdoc comment for `is_test_module_or_function` states: 2795a60189/clippy_utils/src/lib.rs (L2561-L2566)
Given `item`, the function calls `is_in_test_function` with `item.hir_id()`. However, `is_in_test_function` considers only `item`'s parents, not `item` itself. This PR fixes the problem.
The `test_with_disallowed_name` test fails without the fix, but passes once applied.
changelog: none
Implement syntax for `impl Trait` to specify its captures explicitly (`feature(precise_capturing)`)
Implements `impl use<'a, 'b, T, U> Sized` syntax that allows users to explicitly list the captured parameters for an opaque, rather than inferring it from the opaque's bounds (or capturing *all* lifetimes under 2024-edition capture rules). This allows us to exclude some implicit captures, so this syntax may be used as a migration strategy for changes due to #117587.
We represent this list of captured params as `PreciseCapturingArg` in AST and HIR, resolving them between `rustc_resolve` and `resolve_bound_vars`. Later on, we validate that the opaques only capture the parameters in this list.
We artificially limit the feature to *require* mentioning all type and const parameters, since we don't currently have support for non-lifetime bivariant generics. This can be relaxed in the future.
We also may need to limit this to require naming *all* lifetime parameters for RPITIT, since GATs have no variance. I have to investigate this. This can also be relaxed in the future.
r? `@oli-obk`
Tracking issue:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
type certainty: clear `DefId` when an expression's type changes to non-adt
Fixes#12585
The root cause of the ICE in the linked issue was in the expression `one.x`, in the array literal.
The type of `one` is the `One` struct: an adt with a DefId, so its certainty is `Certain(def_id_of_one)`. However, the field access `.x` can then change the type (to `i32` here) and that should update that `DefId` accordingly. It does do that correctly when `one.x` would be another adt with a DefId:
97ba291d5a/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L90-L91)
but when it *isn't* an adt and there is no def id (which is the case in the linked issue: `one.x` is an i32), it keeps the `DefId` of `One`, even though that's the wrong type (which would then lead to a contradiction later when joining `Certainty`s):
97ba291d5a/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L92-L93)
In particular, in the linked issue, `from_array([one.x, two.x])` would try to join the `Certainty` of the two array elements, which *should* have been `[Certain(None), Certain(None)]`, because `i32`s have no `DefId`, but instead it was `[Certain(One), Certain(Two)]`, because the DefId wasn't cleared from when it was visiting `one` and `two`. This is the "contradiction" that could be seen in the ICE message
... so this changes it to clear the `DefId` when it isn't an adt.
cc `@smoelius` you implemented this initially in #11135, does this change make sense to you?
changelog: none
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
new lint `legacy_numeric_constants`
Rework of #10997
- uses diagnostic items
- does not lint imports of the float modules (`use std::f32`)
- does not lint usage of float constants that look like `f32::MIN`
I chose to make the float changes because the following pattern is actually pretty useful
```rust
use std::f32;
let omega = freq * 2 * f32::consts::PI;
```
and the float modules are not TBD-deprecated like the integer modules.
Closes#10995
---
changelog: New lint [`legacy_numeric_constants`]
[#12312](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12312)
Remove `unwrap` from `match_trait_method`
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that caused #12366.
Note: author (`@m-rph)` and `@GuillaumeGomez` couldn't replicate #12366.
changelog:none
r? `@blyxyas`
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match
trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that may have caused 12366.
Note: author (@m-rph) and @GuillaumeGomez couldn't replicate 12366.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
