Use correct param-env in `MissingCopyImplementations`
We shouldn't assume the param-env is empty for this lint, since although we check the struct has no parameters, there still may be trivial where-clauses.
fixes#125394
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
expand: fix minor diagnostics bug
The error mentions `///`, when it's actually `//!`:
```
error[E0658]: attributes on expressions are experimental
--> test.rs:4:9
|
4 | //! wah
| ^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]` to the crate attributes to enable
= help: `///` is for documentation comments. For a plain comment, use `//`.
```
Some minor (English only) heroics are performed to print error messages
like "5th rule of macro `m` is never used". The form "rule #5 of macro
`m` is never used" is just as good and much simpler to implement.
Fix insufficient logic when searching for the underlying allocation
This PR fixes the logic inside the `invalid_reference_casting` lint, when trying to lint on bigger memory layout casts.
More specifically when looking for the "underlying allocation" we were wrongly assuming that when we got `&mut slice[index]` that `slice[index]` was the allocation, but it's not.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124685
Couldn't find documentation supporting that single-variant
`#[repr(Rust)]` enums with RHS assigned work as expected with this
change.
```rust
enum Variants {
A = 17,
} // Would this be zero sized optimized guaranteed?
```
Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions
This implements the suggestion in [#15701](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701#issuecomment-2033124217) to disallow ambiguous outer attributes on expressions. This should resolve one of the concerns blocking the stabilization of `stmt_expr_attributes`.
Deny gen keyword in `edition_2024_compat` lints
Splits the `keyword_idents` lint into two -- `keyword_idents_2018` and `keyword_idents_2024` -- since each corresponds to a future-compat warning in a different edition. Group these together into a new `keyword_idents` lint group, and add the latter to the `rust_2024_compatibility` so that `gen` is ready for the 2024 edition.
cc `@traviscross` `@ehuss`
The error mentions `///`, when it's actually `//!`:
error[E0658]: attributes on expressions are experimental
--> test.rs:4:9
|
4 | //! wah
| ^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue #15701 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]` to the crate attributes to enable
= help: `///` is for documentation comments. For a plain comment, use `//`.
Fix trait solver overflow with `non_local_definitions` lint
This PR fixes the trait solver overflow with the `non_local_definitions` lint reported in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123573 using the suggestion from `@lcnr:` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123573#issuecomment-2041348320 to use the next trait solver.
~~I have not (yet) tried to create a minimized repro~~ ``@compiler-errors`` did the minimization (thanks you) but I have manually tested on the `starlark-rust` project that it fixes the issue.
Fixes#123573
r? `@lcnr`
Split `non_local_definitions` lint tests in separate test files
This PR splits the giant `non_local_definitions` lint UI test in separate test files.
This change is extracted from #123594 (where it was requested https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123594#discussion_r1555261772), to ease the review of the other PR and to reduce the size of the other PR.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
