Fix underflow in `manual_split_once` lint
Hi, a friend found clippy started crashing on a suspiciously large allocation of `u64::MAX` memory on their code.
The mostly minimized repro is:
```rust
fn _f01(title: &str) -> Option<()> {
let _ = title[1..].splitn(2, '[').next()?;
Some(())
}
```
The underflow happens in this case on line 57 of the patch but I've changed the other substraction to saturating as well since it could potentially cause the same issue.
I'm not sure where to put a regression test, or if it's even worth for such a thing.
Aside, has it been considered before to build clippy with overflow checks enabled?
changelog: fix ICE of underflow in `manual_split_once` lint
Store a `Symbol` instead of an `Ident` in `AssocItem`
This is the same idea as #92533, but for `AssocItem` instead
of `VariantDef`/`FieldDef`.
With this change, we no longer have any uses of
`#[stable_hasher(project(...))]`
Fix `needless_borrow` causing mutable borrows to be moved
fixes#8191
changelog: Fix `needless_borrow` causing mutable borrows to be moved
changelog: Rename `ref_in_deref` to `needless_borrow`
changelog: Suggest removing the borrow on method call receivers in `needless_borrow`
Check usages in `ptr_arg`
fixes#214fixes#1981fixes#3381fixes#6406fixes#6964
This does not take into account the return type of the function currently, so `(&Vec<_>) -> &Vec<_>` functions may still be false positives.
The name given for the type also has to match the real type name, so `type Foo = Vec<u32>` won't trigger the lint, but `type Vec = Vec<u32>` will. I'm not sure if this is the best way to handle this, or if a note about the actual type should be added instead.
changelog: Check if the argument is used in a way which requires the original type in `ptr_arg`
changelog: Lint mutable references in `ptr_arg`
Don't suggest an empty variant name in `enum_variant_names`
changelog: false positive fix: [`enum_variant_names`]: No longer suggests an empty variant name
Fixes#8324
This commit changes the behavior of `single_match` lint.
After that, we won't lint non-exhaustive matches like this:
```rust
match Some(v) {
Some(a) => println!("${:?}", a),
None => {},
}
```
The rationale is that, because the type of `a` could be changed, so the
user can get non-exhaustive match after applying the suggested lint (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8282#issuecomment-1013566068
for context).
We also will lint `match` constructions with tuples. When we see the
tuples on the both arms, we will check them both at the same time, and
if they form exhaustive match, we could display the warning.
Closes#8282
