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.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
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``
ast/hir: Rename field-related structures
I always forget what `ast::Field` and `ast::StructField` mean despite working with AST for long time, so this PR changes the naming to less confusing and more consistent.
- `StructField` -> `FieldDef` ("field definition")
- `Field` -> `ExprField` ("expression field", not "field expression")
- `FieldPat` -> `PatField` ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Various visiting and other methods working with the fields are renamed correspondingly too.
The second commit reduces the size of `ExprKind` by boxing fields of `ExprKind::Struct` in preparation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80080.
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`.
Right now, rustdoc users have an unpleasant situation: they can either
use the new tool lint names (`rustdoc::non_autolinks`) or they can use
the old names (`non_autolinks`). If they use the tool lints, they get a
hard error on stable compilers, because rustc rejects all tool names it
doesn't recognize. If they use the old name, they get a warning to
rename the lint to the new name. The only way to compile without
warnings is to add `#[allow(renamed_removed_lints)]`, which defeats the
whole point of the change: we *want* people to switch to the new name.
To avoid people silencing the lint and never migrating to the tool lint,
this avoids warning about the old name, while still allowing you to use
the new name. Once the new `rustdoc` tool name makes it to the stable
channel, we can change these lints to warn again.
This adds the new lint functions `register_alias` and `register_ignored`
- I didn't see an existing way to do this.
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.
Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
Rename `rustdoc` to `rustdoc::all`
When rustdoc lints were changed to be tool lints, the `rustdoc` group was removed, leading to spurious warnings like
```
warning: unknown lint: `rustdoc`
```
The lint group still worked when rustdoc ran, since rustdoc added the group itself.
This renames the group to `rustdoc::all` for consistency with `clippy::all` and the rest of the rustdoc lints.
Follow-up to #80527.
r? ``@Manishearth``
or-patterns: disallow in `let` bindings
~~Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81869~~
Disallows top-level or-patterns before type ascription. We want to reserve this syntactic space for possible future generalized type ascription.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
When rustdoc lints were changed to be tool lints, the `rustdoc` group
was removed, leading to spurious warnings like
```
warning: unknown lint: `rustdoc`
```
The lint group still worked when rustdoc ran, since rustdoc added the group itself.
This renames the group to `rustdoc::all` for consistency with
`clippy::all` and the rest of the rustdoc lints.
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint
Implements the beginnings of https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/67 - a lint for detecting noop method calls (e.g, calling `<&T as Clone>::clone()` when `T: !Clone`).
This PR does not fully realize the vision and has a few limitations that need to be addressed either before merging or in subsequent PRs:
* [ ] No UFCS support
* [ ] The warning message is pretty plain
* [ ] Doesn't work for `ToOwned`
The implementation uses [`Instance::resolve`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/instance/struct.Instance.html#method.resolve) which is normally later in the compiler. It seems that there are some invariants that this function relies on that we try our best to respect. For instance, it expects substitutions to have happened, which haven't yet performed, but we check first for `needs_subst` to ensure we're dealing with a monomorphic type.
Thank you to ```@davidtwco,``` ```@Aaron1011,``` and ```@wesleywiser``` for helping me at various points through out this PR ❤️.
Note that the FIXME was removed because this can't be fixed,
`register_renamed` calls LintId::of and there's no LintId for rustdoc
lints when rustc is running.
- Move MISSING_CRATE_LEVEL_DOCS to rustdoc directly
- Update documentation
This also takes the opportunity to make the `no-crate-level-doc-lint`
test more specific.
- Use `register_renamed` when rustdoc is running so the lint will still
be active and use a structured suggestion
- Test the behavior for rustc, not just for rustdoc (because it differs)
