Improve wording of the `drop_bounds` lint
This PR addresses #86653. The issue is sort of a false positive of the `drop_bounds` lint, but I would argue that the best solution for #86653 is simply a rewording of the warning message and lint description, because even if the lint is _technically_ wrong, it still forces the programmer to think about what they are doing, and they can always use `#[allow(drop_bounds)]` if they think that they really need the `Drop` bound.
There are two issues with the current warning message and lint description:
- First, it says that `Drop` bounds are "useless", which is technically incorrect because they actually do have the effect of allowing you e.g. to call methods that also have a `Drop` bound on their generic arguments for some reason. I have changed the wording to emphasize not that the bound is "useless", but that it is most likely not what was intended.
- Second, it claims that `std::mem::needs_drop` detects whether a type has a destructor. But I think this is also technically wrong: The `Drop` bound says whether the type has a destructor or not, whereas `std::mem::needs_drop` also takes nested types with destructors into account, even if the top-level type does not itself have one (although I'm not 100% sure about the exact terminology here, i.e. whether the "drop glue" of the top-level type counts as a destructor or not).
cc `@jonhoo,` does this solve the issue for you?
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Force warn improvements
As part of stablization of the `--force-warn` option (#86516) I've made the following changes:
* Error when the `warnings` lint group is based to the `--force-warn` option
* Tests have been updated to make it easier to understand the semantics of `--force-warn`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Improve non_fmt_panics suggestion based on trait impls.
This improves the non_fmt_panics lint suggestions by checking first which trait (Display or Debug) are actually implemented on the type.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87313
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87999
Before:
```
help: add a "{}" format string to Display the message
|
2 | panic!("{}", Some(1));
| +++++
help: or use std::panic::panic_any instead
|
2 | std::panic::panic_any(Some(1));
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
After:
```
help: add a "{:?}" format string to use the Debug implementation of `Option<i32>`
|
2 | panic!("{:?}", Some(1));
| +++++++
help: or use std::panic::panic_any instead
|
2 | std::panic::panic_any(Some(1));
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
r? `@estebank`
Detect fake spans in non_fmt_panic lint.
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87621
Some proc_macros claim that the user wrote all of the tokens it outputs, by applying a span from the input to all of the produced tokens. That can result in confusing suggestions, as in #87621. This is a simple patch that avoids suggesting anything for `panic!("{}")` if the span of `"{}"` and `panic!(..)` are identical, which is normally not possible.
Uplift the invalid_atomic_ordering lint from clippy to rustc
This is mostly just a rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79654; I've copy/pasted the text from that PR below.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one, but feel free to reassign.
---
This is an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/390.
As mentioned, in general this turns an unconditional runtime panic into a (compile time) lint failure. It has no false positives, and the only false negatives I'm aware of are if `Ordering` isn't specified directly and is comes from an argument/constant/whatever.
As a result of it having no false positives, and the alternative always being strictly wrong, it's on as deny by default. This seems right.
In the [zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Uplift.20the.20.60invalid_atomic_ordering.60.20lint.20from.20clippy/near/218483957) `@joshtriplett` suggested that lang team should FCP this before landing it. Perhaps libs team cares too?
---
Some notes on the code for reviewers / others below
## Changes from clippy
The code is changed from [the implementation in clippy](68cf94f6a6/clippy_lints/src/atomic_ordering.rs) in the following ways:
1. Uses `Symbols` and `rustc_diagnostic_item`s instead of string literals.
- It's possible I should have just invoked Symbol::intern for some of these instead? Seems better to use symbol, but it did require adding several.
2. The functions are moved to static methods inside the lint struct, as a way to namespace them.
- There's a lot of other code in that file — which I picked as the location for this lint because `@jyn514` told me that seemed reasonable.
3. Supports unstable AtomicU128/AtomicI128.
- I did this because it was almost easier to support them than not — not supporting them would have (ideally) required finding a way not to give them a `rustc_diagnostic_item`, which would have complicated an already big macro.
- These don't have tests since I wasn't sure if/how I should make tests conditional on whether or not the target has the atomic... This is to a certain extent an issue of 64bit atomics too, but 128-bit atomics are much less common. Regardless, the existing tests should be *more* than thorough enough here.
4. Minor changes like:
- grammar tweaks ("loads cannot have `Release` **and** `AcqRel` ordering" => "loads cannot have `Release` **or** `AcqRel` ordering")
- function renames (`match_ordering_def_path` => `matches_ordering_def_path`),
- avoiding clippy-specific helper methods that don't exist in rustc_lint and didn't seem worth adding for this case (for example `cx.struct_span_lint` vs clippy's `span_lint_and_help` helper).
## Potential issues
(This is just about the code in this PR, not conceptual issues with the lint or anything)
1. I'm not sure if I should have used a diagnostic item for `Ordering` and its variants (I couldn't figure out how really, so if I should do this some pointers would be appreciated).
- It seems possible that failing to do this might possibly mean there are more cases this lint would miss, but I don't really know how `match_def_path` works and if it has any pitfalls like that, so maybe not.
2. I *think* I deprecated the lint in clippy (CC `@flip1995` who asked to be notified about clippy changes in the future in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75671#issuecomment-718731659)) but I'm not sure if I need to do anything else there.
- I'm kind of hoping CI will catch if I missed anything, since `x.py test src/tools/clippy` fails with a lot of errors with and without my changes (and is probably a nonsense command regardless). Running `cargo test` from src/tools/clippy also fails with unrelated errors that seem like refactorings that didnt update clippy? So, honestly no clue.
3. I wasn't sure if the description/example I gave good. Hopefully it is. The example is less thorough than the one from clippy here: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#invalid_atomic_ordering. Let me know if/how I should change it if it needs changing.
4. It pulls in the `if_chain` crate. This crate was already used in clippy, and seems like it's used elsewhere in rustc, but I'm willing to rewrite it to not use this if needed (I'd prefer not to, all things being equal).
- Deprecate clippy::invalid_atomic_ordering
- Use rustc_diagnostic_item for the orderings in the invalid_atomic_ordering lint
- Reduce code duplication
- Give up on making enum variants diagnostic items and just look for
`Ordering` instead
I ran into tons of trouble with this because apparently the change to
store HIR attrs in a side table also gave the DefIds of the
constructor instead of the variant itself. So I had to change
`matches_ordering` to also check the grandparent of the defid as well.
- Rename `atomic_ordering_x` symbols to just the name of the variant
- Fix typos in checks - there were a few places that said "may not be
Release" in the diagnostic but actually checked for SeqCst in the lint.
- Make constant items const
- Use fewer diagnostic items
- Only look at arguments after making sure the method matches
This prevents an ICE when there aren't enough arguments.
- Ignore trait methods
- Only check Ctors instead of going through `qpath_res`
The functions take values, so this couldn't ever be anything else.
- Add if_chain to allowed dependencies
- Fix grammar
- Remove unnecessary allow
Lint against named asm labels
This adds a deny-by-default lint to prevent the use of named labels in inline `asm!`. Without a solution to #81088 about whether the compiler should rewrite named labels or a special syntax for labels, a lint against them should prevent users from writing assembly that could break for internal compiler reasons, such as inlining or anything else that could change the number of actual inline assembly blocks emitted.
This does **not** resolve the issue with rewriting labels, that still needs a decision if the compiler should do any more work to try to make them work.
Try filtering out non-const impls when we expect const impls
**TL;DR**: Associated types on const impls are now bounded; we now disallow calling a const function with bounds when the specified type param only has a non-const impl.
r? `@oli-obk`
Associated functions that contain extern indicator or have `#[rustc_std_internal_symbol]` are reachable
Previously these fails to link with ``undefined reference to `foo'``:
<details>
<summary>Example 1</summary>
```rs
struct AssocFn;
impl AssocFn {
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
}
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
([Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=f1244afcdd26e2a28445f6e82ca46b50))
</details>
<details>
<summary>Example 2</summary>
```rs
#![crate_name = "lib"]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
struct AssocFn;
impl AssocFn {
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
}
```
```rs
extern crate lib;
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
</details>
But I believe they should link successfully, because this works:
<details>
```rs
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
([Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=789b3f283ee6126f53939429103ed98d))
</details>
This PR fixes the problem, by adding associated functions that have "custom linkage" to `reachable_set`, just like normal functions.
I haven't tested whether #76211 and [Miri](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1837) are fixed by this PR yet, but I'm submitting this anyway since this fixes the examples above.
I added a `run-pass` test that combines my two examples above, but I'm not sure if that's the right way to test this. Maybe I should add / modify an existing codegen test (`src/test/codegen/export-no-mangle.rs`?) instead?
Silence non_fmt_panic from external macros.
This stops the non_fmt_panic lint from triggering if a macro from another crate is entirely responsible. In those cases there's nothing that the current crate can/should do.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87621#issuecomment-890311054
Allow labeled loops as value expressions for `break`
Fixes#86948. This is currently allowed:
```rust
return 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break ('label: loop { break 'label 42; });
break 1 + 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break 'outer 'inner: loop { break 'inner 42; };
```
But not this:
```rust
break 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
```
I have fixed this, so that the above now parses as an unlabeled break with a labeled loop as its value expression.
rustc: Replace `HirId`s with `LocalDefId`s in `AccessLevels` tables
and passes using those tables - primarily privacy checking, stability checking and dead code checking.
All these passes work with definitions rather than with arbitrary HIR nodes.
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@lambinoo` (#87487)
rfc3052 followup: Remove authors field from Cargo manifests
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information for contributors, we may as well
remove it from crates in this repo.
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field anyway, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information, we should remove it from
crates in this repo.
Store all HIR owners in the same container
This replaces the previous storage in a BTreeMap for each of Item/ImplItem/TraitItem/ForeignItem.
This should allow for a more compact storage.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83114
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
Make `--force-warns` a normal lint level option
Now that `ForceWarn` is a lint level, there's no reason `--force-warns` should be treated differently from other options that set lint levels. This merges the `ForceWarn` handling in with the other lint level command line options. It also unifies all of the relevant selection logic in `compiler/rustc_lint/src/levels.rs`, rather than having some of it weirdly elsewhere.
Fixes#86958, which arose from the special-cased handling of `ForceWarn` having had an error in it.
Compute a better `lint_node_id` during expansion
When we need to emit a lint at a macro invocation, we currently use the
`NodeId` of its parent definition (e.g. the enclosing function). This
means that any `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` attributes placed 'closer' to the
macro (e.g. on an enclosing block or statement) will have no effect.
This commit computes a better `lint_node_id` in `InvocationCollector`.
When we visit/flat_map an AST node, we assign it a `NodeId` (earlier
than we normally would), and store than `NodeId` in current
`ExpansionData`. When we collect a macro invocation, the current
`lint_node_id` gets cloned along with our `ExpansionData`, allowing it
to be used if we need to emit a lint later on.
This improves the handling of `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` for
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` and some `asm!`-related lints.
The 'legacy derive helpers' lint retains its current behavior
(I've inlined the now-removed `lint_node_id` function), since
there isn't an `ExpansionData` readily available.
Based on the conversation in #86747.
Explanation
-----------
A trait object bound of the form `dyn Drop` is most likely misleading
and not what the programmer intended.
`Drop` bounds do not actually indicate whether a type can be trivially
dropped or not, because a composite type containing `Drop` types does
not necessarily implement `Drop` itself. Naïvely, one might be tempted
to write a deferred drop system, to pull cleaning up memory out of a
latency-sensitive code path, using `dyn Drop` trait objects. However,
this breaks down e.g. when `T` is `String`, which does not implement
`Drop`, but should probably be accepted.
To write a trait object bound that accepts anything, use a placeholder
trait with a blanket implementation.
```rust
trait Placeholder {}
impl<T> Placeholder for T {}
fn foo(_x: Box<dyn Placeholder>) {}
```
Fix internal `default_hash_types` lint to use resolved path
I run into false positives now and then (mostly in Clippy) when I want to name some util after HashMap.
Remove `missing_docs` lint on private 2.0 macros
798baebde1/compiler/rustc_lint/src/builtin.rs (L573-L584)
This code is the source of #57569. The problem is subtle, so let me point it out. This code makes the mistake of assuming that all of the macros in `krate.exported_macros` are exported.
...Yeah. For some historical reason, all `macro` macros are marked as exported, regardless of whether they actually are, which is dreadfully confusing. It would be more accurate to say that `exported_macros` currently contains only macros that have paths.
This PR renames `exported_macros` to `importable_macros`, since these macros can be imported with `use` while others cannot. It also fixes the code above to no longer lint on private `macro` macros, since the `missing_docs` lint should only appear on exported items.
Fixes#57569.
Support lint tool names in rustc command line options
When rustc is running without a lint tool such as clippy enabled, options for lints such as `clippy::foo` are meant to be ignored. This was already working for those specified by attrs, such as `#![allow(clippy::foo)]`, but this did not work for command line arguments like `-A clippy::foo`. This PR fixes that issue.
Note that we discovered this issue while discussing https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5034.
Fixes#86628.
This change merges `check_lint_and_tool_name` into `check_lint_name` in
order to avoid having two very similar functions.
Also adds the `.stderr` file back for the test case, since apparently
it is still needed.
Only include lint in future_incompatible lint group if not an edition lint
A follow up to #86330 - this only includes lints annotated with `FutureIncompatibleInfo` in the `future_incompatibile` lint group if the future compatibility is not tied to an edition.
We probably want to rename `FutureIncompatibleInfo` to something else since this type is now used to indicate future breakages of all kinds (even those that happen in editions). I'd prefer to do that in a separate PR though.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Don't make `rustc_insignificant_dtor` feature gate
This isn't a feature gate, it's an attribute that is feature gated behind the `rustc_attrs` attribute. Closes#85680.
Turn non_fmt_panic into a future_incompatible edition lint.
This turns the `non_fmt_panic` lint into a future_incompatible edition lint, so it becomes part of the `rust_2021_compatibility` group. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894.
This lint produces both warnings about semantical changes (e.g. `panic!("{{")`) and things that will become hard errors (e.g. `panic!("{")`). So I added a `explain_reason: false` that supresses the default "this will become a hard error" or "the semantics will change" message, and instead added a note depending on the situation. (cc `@rylev)`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
This prevents mistakes where the feature is in the list of incomplete
features but not actually a feature by making the incompleteness a part
of the declaration.
Reserve prefixed identifiers and literals (RFC 3101)
This PR denies any identifiers immediately followed by one of three tokens `"`, `'` or `#`, which is stricter than the requirements of RFC 3101 but may be necessary according to the discussion at [Zulip].
[Zulip]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/268952-edition-2021/topic/reserved.20prefixes/near/238470099
The tracking issue #84599 says we'll add a feature gate named `reserved_prefixes`, but I don't think I can do this because it is impossible for the lexer to know whether a feature is enabled or not. I guess determining the behavior by the edition information should be enough.
Fixes#84599
