This makes their intent and expected location clearer. We see some
examples where these comments were not clearly separate from `use`
declarations, which made it hard to understand what the comment is
describing.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
When `derive`ing, account for HRTB on `BareFn` fields
When given
```rust
trait SomeTrait {
type SomeType<'a>;
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Foo<T: SomeTrait> {
x: for<'a> fn(T::SomeType<'a>)
}
```
expand to
```rust
impl<T: ::core::clone::Clone + SomeTrait> ::core::clone::Clone for Foo<T>
where for<'a> T::SomeType<'a>: ::core::clone::Clone {
#[inline]
fn clone(&self) -> Foo<T> {
Foo { x: ::core::clone::Clone::clone(&self.x) }
}
}
```
instead of the previous invalid
```
impl<T: ::core::clone::Clone + SomeTrait> ::core::clone::Clone for Foo<T>
where T::SomeType<'a>: ::core::clone::Clone {
#[inline]
fn clone(&self) -> Foo<T> {
Foo { x: ::core::clone::Clone::clone(&self.x) }
}
}
```
Fix#122622.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Currently we have an awkward mix of fallible and infallible functions:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
maybe_new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
(maybe_new_parser_from_file) // missing
(new_parser_from_source_file) // missing
maybe_new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
maybe_source_file_to_stream
```
We could add the two missing functions, but instead this commit removes
of all the infallible ones and renames the fallible ones leaving us with
these which are all fallible:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
source_file_to_stream
```
This requires making `unwrap_or_emit_fatal` public so callers of
formerly infallible functions can still work.
This does make some of the call sites slightly more verbose, but I think
it's worth it for the simpler API. Also, there are two `catch_unwind`
calls and one `catch_fatal_errors` call in this diff that become
removable thanks this change. (I will do that in a follow-up PR.)
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
This has no noticeable effect, but it makes these cases follow the
guidelines in the comments on `Spacing`, which say that `Joint` should
be used "for each token that (a) should be pretty-printed without a
space after it, and (b) is followed by a punctuation token".
These two tokens are both followed by a comma, which is a punctuation
token.
Translation of the lint message happens when the actual diagnostic is
created, not when the lint is buffered. Generating the message from
BuiltinLintDiag ensures that all required data to construct the message
is preserved in the LintBuffer, eventually allowing the messages to be
moved to fluent.
Remove the `msg` field from BufferedEarlyLint, it is either generated
from the data in the BuiltinLintDiag or stored inside
BuiltinLintDiag::Normal.
Rename Unsafe to Safety
Alternative to #124455, which is to just have one Safety enum to use everywhere, this opens the posibility of adding `ast::Safety::Safe` that's useful for unsafe extern blocks.
This leaves us today with:
```rust
enum ast::Safety {
Unsafe(Span),
Default,
// Safe (going to be added for unsafe extern blocks)
}
enum hir::Safety {
Unsafe,
Safe,
}
```
We would convert from `ast::Safety::Default` into the right Safety level according the context.
Add `ErrorGuaranteed` to `Recovered::Yes` and use it more.
The starting point for this was identical comments on two different fields, in `ast::VariantData::Struct` and `hir::VariantData::Struct`:
```
// FIXME: investigate making this a `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`
recovered: bool
```
I tried that, and then found that I needed to add an `ErrorGuaranteed` to `Recovered::Yes`. Then I ended up using `Recovered` instead of `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>` for these two places and elsewhere, which required moving `ErrorGuaranteed` from `rustc_parse` to `rustc_ast`.
This makes things more consistent, because `Recovered` is used in more places, and there are fewer uses of `bool` and
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`. And safer, because it's difficult/impossible to set `recovered` to `Recovered::Yes` without having emitted an error.
r? `@oli-obk`
The starting point for this was identical comments on two different
fields, in `ast::VariantData::Struct` and `hir::VariantData::Struct`:
```
// FIXME: investigate making this a `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`
recovered: bool
```
I tried that, and then found that I needed to add an `ErrorGuaranteed`
to `Recovered::Yes`. Then I ended up using `Recovered` instead of
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>` for these two places and elsewhere, which
required moving `ErrorGuaranteed` from `rustc_parse` to `rustc_ast`.
This makes things more consistent, because `Recovered` is used in more
places, and there are fewer uses of `bool` and
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`. And safer, because it's difficult/impossible
to set `recovered` to `Recovered::Yes` without having emitted an error.
Do not add leading asterisk in the `PartialEq`
I think we should address this issue, however I am not exactly sure, if this is the right way to do it. It is related to the #123056.
Imagine the simplified code:
```rust
trait MyTrait {}
impl PartialEq for dyn MyTrait {
fn eq(&self, _other: &Self) -> bool {
true
}
}
#[derive(PartialEq)]
enum Bar {
Foo(Box<dyn MyTrait>),
}
```
On the nightly compiler, the `derive` produces invalid code with the weird error message:
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `*__arg1_0` which is behind a shared reference
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | #[derive(PartialEq)]
| --------- in this derive macro expansion
10 | enum Things {
11 | Foo(Box<dyn MyTrait>),
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ move occurs because `*__arg1_0` has type `Box<dyn MyTrait>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
|
= note: this error originates in the derive macro `PartialEq` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
It may be related to the perfect derive problem, although requiring the _type_ to be `Copy` seems unfortunate because it is not necessary. Besides, we are adding the extra dereference only for the diagnostics?
Remove braces when fixing a nested use tree into a single item
[Back in 2019](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56645) I added rustfix support for the `unused_imports` lint, to automatically remove them when running `cargo fix`. For the most part this worked great, but when removing all but one childs of a nested use tree it turned `use foo::{Unused, Used}` into `use foo::{Used}`. This is slightly annoying, because it then requires you to run `rustfmt` to get `use foo::Used`.
This PR automatically removes braces and the surrouding whitespace when all but one child of a nested use tree are unused. To get it done I had to add the span of the nested use tree to the AST, and refactor a bit the code I wrote back then.
A thing I noticed is, there doesn't seem to be any `//@ run-rustfix` test for fixing the `unused_imports` lint. I created a test in `tests/suggestions` (is that the right directory?) that for now tests just what I added in the PR. I can followup in a separate PR to add more tests for fixing `unused_lints`.
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit.
This moves some code around and adds some documentation comments to make
it easier to understand what's going on with the entrypoint logic, which
is a bit complicated.
The only change in behavior is consolidating the error messages for
unix_sigpipe to make the code slightly simpler.
ast: Generalize item kind visiting
And avoid duplicating logic for visiting `Item`s with different kinds (regular, associated, foreign).
The diff is better viewed with whitespace ignored.
These functions are only used in `rustc_builtin_macros`, so it makes
sense for them to live there. This allows them to be changed from `pub`
to `pub(crate)`.
