Rollup of 14 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #70563 ([rustdoc] Page hash handling)
- #73856 (Edit librustc_lexer top-level docs)
- #73870 (typeck: adding type information to projection)
- #73953 (Audit hidden/short code suggestions)
- #73962 (libstd/net/tcp.rs: #![deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)])
- #73969 (mir: mark mir construction temporaries as internal)
- #73974 (Move A|Rc::as_ptr from feature(weak_into_raw) to feature(rc_as_ptr))
- #74067 (rustdoc: Restore underline text decoration on hover for FQN in header)
- #74074 (Fix the return type of Windows' `OpenOptionsExt::security_qos_flags`.)
- #74078 (Always resolve type@primitive as a primitive, not a module)
- #74089 (Add rust-analyzer to the build manifest)
- #74090 (Remove unused RUSTC_DEBUG_ASSERTIONS)
- #74102 (Fix const prop ICE)
- #74112 (Expand abbreviation in core::ffi description)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
typeck: adding type information to projection
This commit modifies the Place as follow:
* remove 'ty' from ProjectionKind
* add type information into to Projection
* replace 'ty' in Place with 'base_ty'
* introduce 'ty()' in `Place` to return the final type of the `Place`
* introduce `ty_before_projection()` in `Place` to return the type of
a `Place` before i'th projection is applied
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/5
Suggest `Option::map_or`(_else) for `if let Some { y } else { x }`
Fixes#5203
There are two issues with this code that I have noticed:
- Use of `Option::map_or` causes it to always evaluate the code in the else block. If that block is computationally expensive or if it updates some state (such as getting the next value from an iterator), then this change would cause the code to behave differently. In either of those circumstances, it should suggest Option::map_or_else, which takes both cases as a closure and runs one. However, I don't know how to check if the expression would change some state, so I left the lint's applicability as MaybeIncorrect.
- There are lints which can trigger on specific sub-cases of this lint (`if_let_some_result`, `question_mark`, and `while_let_loop`) and suggest different changes (usually better ones because they're more specific). Is this acceptable for clippy to give multiple suggestions, or should I have the code check if those other lints trigger and then not trigger this lint if they do?
changelog: Add lint [`option_if_let_else`]
Added restriction lint: pattern-type-mismatch
changelog: Added a new restriction lint `pattern-type-mismatch`. This lint is especially helpful for beginners learning about the magic behind pattern matching. (This explanation might be worth to include in the next changelog.)
Improvements for `type_repetition_in_bounds` lint
Some improvements for `type_repetition_in_bounds`:
- add a configurable threshold to trigger the lint (#4380). The lint won't trigger anymore if there are more bounds (strictly) than `conf.max_trait_bounds` on this type.
- take generic args into account over bounded type (#4323)
- don't lint for predicates generated in macros (#4326)
Fixes#4380,
Fixes#4323,
Fixes#4326,
Closes#3764
changelog: Fix multiple FPs in `type_repetition_in_bounds` and add a configuration option
Note: the #3764 has already been fixed but not closed
