Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
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``
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```
#![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`.
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
Previously, if you denied the old name of a renamed lint, it would warn
about using the new name, but otherwise do nothing. Now, it will behave
the same as if you'd used the new name.
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.
- Don't add backticks for the reason a lint was removed. This is almost
never a code block, and when it is the backticks should be in the reason
itself.
- Don't assume clippy is the only tool that needs to be checked for
backwards compatibility
Previously, clippy (and any other tool emitting lints) had to have their
own separate UNKNOWN_LINTS pass, because the compiler assumed any tool
lint could be valid. Now, as long as any lint starting with the tool
prefix exists, the compiler will warn when an unknown lint is present.
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids
Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which
meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal
behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take
effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we
are reducing its level.
It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to
silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing
the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite
odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially.
This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the
special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix
the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid
being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a
desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a
sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope
for this commit.
r? `@pnkfelix` perhaps?
cc #77713 -- not marking as "Fixes" because of the lack of proper unused attribute handling in this PR
Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which
meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal
behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take
effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we
are reducing its level.
It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to
silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing
the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite
odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially.
This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the
special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix
the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid
being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a
desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a
sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope
for this commit.
Fixes#78660
With PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75534 merged, we now run
more lint-related code for future-incompat-report, even when their final
level is Allow. Some lint-related code was not expecting `Level::Allow`,
and had an explicit panic.
This PR explicitly tracks the lint level set on the command line before
`--cap-lints` is applied. This is used to emit a more precise error
note (e.g. we don't say that `-W lint-name` was specified on the
command line just because a lint was capped to Warn). As a result, we
can now correctly emit a note that `-A` was used if we got
`Level::Allow` from the command line (before the cap is applied).
When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they
activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it.
This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example,
the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for
`#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed
the warning.
```rust
trait Foo {
#[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first();
#[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second();
}
```
However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes
only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind`
(e.g. `Item`).
Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the
`HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`.
As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on
item statements.
This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert
(non-proc-macro) attributes on statements:
* The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for
`StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind`
variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro
which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item
statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for
item statements.
* The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when
invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint
attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to
sibiling attributes on an item statement.
For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item
statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn
where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
