Fix sign-handling bugs and false negatives in `cast_sign_loss`
**Note: anyone should feel free to move this PR forward, I might not see notifications from reviewers.**
changelog: [`cast_sign_loss`]: Fix sign-handling bugs and false negatives
This PR fixes some arithmetic bugs and false negatives in PR #11883 (and maybe earlier PRs).
Cc `@J-ZhengLi`
I haven't updated the tests yet. I was hoping for some initial feedback before adding tests to cover the cases listed below.
Here are the issues I've attempted to fix:
#### `abs()` can return a negative value in release builds
Example:
```rust
i32::MIN.abs()
```
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2021&gist=022d200f9ef6ee72f629c0c9c1af11b8
Docs: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.abs
Other overflows that produce negative values could cause false negatives (and underflows could produce false positives), but they're harder to detect.
#### Values with uncertain signs can be positive or negative
Any number of values with uncertain signs cause the whole expression to have an uncertain sign, because an uncertain sign can be positive or negative.
Example (from UI tests):
```rust
fn main() {
foo(a: i32, b: i32, c: i32) -> u32 {
(a * b * c * c) as u32
//~^ ERROR: casting `i32` to `u32` may lose the sign of the value
}
println!("{}", foo(1, -1, 1));
}
```
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=165d2e2676ee8343b1b9fe60db32aadd
#### Handle `expect()` the same way as `unwrap()`
Since we're ignoring `unwrap()` we might as well do the same with `expect()`.
This doesn't seem to have tests but I'm happy to add some like `Some(existing_test).unwrap() as u32`.
#### A negative base to an odd exponent is guaranteed to be negative
An integer `pow()`'s sign is only uncertain when its operants are uncertain. (Ignoring overflow.)
Example:
```rust
((-2_i32).pow(3) * -2) as u32
```
This offsets some of the false positives created by one or more uncertain signs producing an uncertain sign. (Rather than just an odd number of uncertain signs.)
#### Both sides of a multiply or divide should be peeled recursively
I'm not sure why the lhs was peeled recursively, and the rhs was left intact. But the sign of any sequence of multiplies and divides is determined by the signs of its operands. (Ignoring overflow.)
I'm not sure what to use as an example here, because most expressions I want to use are const-evaluable.
But if `p()` is [a non-const function that returns a positive value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.isqrt), and if the lint handles unary negation, these should all lint:
```rust
fn peel_all(x: i32) {
(-p(x) * -p(x) * -p(x)) as u32;
((-p(x) * -p(x)) * -p(x)) as u32;
(-p(x) * (-p(x) * -p(x))) as u32;
}
```
#### The right hand side of a Rem doesn't change the sign
Unlike Mul and Div,
> Given remainder = dividend % divisor, the remainder will have the same sign as the dividend.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions/operator-expr.html#arithmetic-and-logical-binary-operators
I'm not sure what to use as an example here, because most expressions I want to use are const-evaluable.
But if `p()` is [a non-const function that returns a positive value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.isqrt), and if the lint handles unary negation, only the first six expressions should lint.
The expressions that start with a constant should lint (or not lint) regardless of whether the lint supports `p()` or unary negation, because only the dividend's sign matters.
Example:
```rust
fn rem_lhs(x: i32) {
(-p(x) % -1) as u32;
(-p(x) % 1) as u32;
(-1 % -p(x)) as u32;
(-1 % p(x)) as u32;
(-1 % -x) as u32;
(-1 % x) as u32;
// These shouldn't lint:
(p(x) % -1) as u32;
(p(x) % 1) as u32;
(1 % -p(x)) as u32;
(1 % p(x)) as u32;
(1 % -x) as u32;
(1 % x) as u32;
}
```
#### There's no need to bail on other expressions
When peeling, any other operators or expressions can be left intact and sent to the constant evaluator.
If these expressions can be evaluated, this offsets some of the false positives created by one or more uncertain signs producing an uncertain sign. If not, they end up marked as having uncertain sign.
[`read_line_without_trim`]: detect string literal comparison and `.ends_with()` calls
This lint now also realizes that a comparison like `s == "foo"` and calls such as `s.ends_with("foo")` will fail if `s` was initialized by a call to `Stdin::read_line` (because of the trailing newline).
changelog: [`read_line_without_trim`]: detect string literal comparison and `.ends_with()` calls
r? `@giraffate` assigning you because you reviewed #10970 that added this lint, so this is kinda a followup PR ^^
fix suggestion error in [`useless_vec`]
fixes: #12101
---
changelog: fix suggestion error in [`useless_vec`]
r+ `@matthiaskrgr` since they opened the issue?
Empty docs
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9931
changelog: [`empty_doc`]: Detects documentation that is empty.
changelog: Doc comment lints now trigger for struct field and enum variant documentation
[`box_default`]: Preserve required path segments
When encountering code such as:
```rs
Box::new(outer::Inner::default())
```
clippy would suggest replacing with `Box::<Inner>::default()`, dropping the `outer::` segment. This behavior is incorrect and that commit fixes it.
What it does is it checks the contents of the `Box::new` and, if it is of the form `A::B::default`, does a text replacement, inserting `A::B` in the `Box`'s quickfix generic list.
If the source does not match that pattern (including `Vec::from(..)` or other `T::new()` calls), we then fallback to the original code.
Fixes#11927
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`box_default`]: Preserve required path segments
When encountering code such as:
```
Box::new(outer::Inner::default())
```
clippy would suggest replacing with `Box::<Inner>::default()`, dropping
the `outer::` segment. This behavior is incorrect and that commit fixes
it.
What it does is it checks the contents of the `Box::new` and, if it is
of the form `A::B::default`, does a text replacement, inserting `A::B`
in the `Box`'s quickfix generic list.
If the source does not match that pattern (including `Vec::from(..)`
or other `T::new()` calls), we then fallback to the original code.
Fixes#11927
style: sync GitHub Corner colors
fixes#12349.
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: sync site GitHub Corner colors
Look for `implied_bounds_in_impls` in more positions
With this, we lint `impl Trait` implied bounds in more positions:
- Type alias impl trait
- Associated type position impl trait
- Argument position impl trait
- these are not opaque types, but instead are desugared to `where` clauses, so we need extra logic for finding them (`check_generics`), however the rest of the logic is the same
Before this, we'd only lint RPIT `impl Trait`s.
"Hide whitespaces" and reviewing commits individually might make this easier
changelog: [`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: start linting implied bounds in APIT, ATPIT, TAIT
Merge `single_call_fn` post-crate visitor into lint pass
The `single_call_fn` lint worked by first collecting a list of function definitions in the lint pass, then populating the list of uses for each function in a second visitor after the crate is checked.
Doing another pass through the crate shouldn't be needed, and we should be able to do it in the same lint pass, by looking for path references to functions only and then processing them post-crate.
Other changes:
- `FxHashMap` -> `FxIndexMap` so that we emit warnings in a consistent order, as we see them (making the diff a bit confusing to look at, because warnings were moved around)
- no longer storing a `Vec<Span>` per function: an enum representing "seen once" or "seen more than once" should be enough (only the first element is used later)
- "used here" help is now a note
I also noticed that it lints on trait methods with a default implementation, but not on regular trait methods without a body (because that's what `check_fn` does). I'm not sure if that's useful though, maybe we shouldn't lint trait methods at all? It's not like you can avoid it sometimes (but then again it's a restriction lint). Either way, I left the behavior where it was before so that there are no functional changes made in this PR and it's purely a refactor. I can change it though
changelog: none
FIX(12243): redundant_guards
Fixed#12243
changelog: Fix[`redundant_guards`]
I have made a correction so that no warning does appear when y.is_empty() is used within a constant function as follows.
```rust
pub const fn const_fn(x: &str) {
match x {
// Shouldn't lint.
y if y.is_empty() => {},
_ => {},
}
}
```
Add new `unnecessary_get_then_check` lint
No issue linked to this as far as I can see. It's a lint I discovered that could be added when I worked on another lint.
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: Add new `unnecessary_get_then_check` lint
