take 2
open up coroutines
tweak the wordings
the lint works up until 2021
We were missing one case, for ADTs, which was
causing `Result` to yield incorrect results.
only include field spans with significant types
deduplicate and eliminate field spans
switch to emit spans to impl Drops
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <nikomat@amazon.com>
collect drops instead of taking liveness diff
apply some suggestions and add explantory notes
small fix on the cache
let the query recurse through coroutine
new suggestion format with extracted variable name
fine-tune the drop span and messages
bugfix on runtime borrows
tweak message wording
filter out ecosystem types earlier
apply suggestions
clippy
check lint level at session level
further restrict applicability of the lint
translate bid into nop for stable mir
detect cycle in type structure
Use a multipart suggestion instead of a single whole-span replacement:
```
error[E0796]: creating a shared reference to a mutable static
--> $DIR/reference-to-mut-static-unsafe-fn.rs:10:18
|
LL | let _y = &X;
| ^^ shared reference to mutable static
|
= note: this shared reference has lifetime `'static`, but if the static ever gets mutated, or a mutable reference is created, then any further use of this shared reference is Undefined Behavior
help: use `addr_of!` instead to create a raw pointer
|
LL | let _y = addr_of!(X);
| ~~~~~~~~~ +
```
- Make temporaries in if-let guards be the same variable in MIR when
the guard is duplicated due to or-patterns.
- Change the "destruction scope" for match arms to be the arm scope rather
than the arm body scope.
- Add tests.
PhantomData: fix documentation wrt interaction with dropck
As far as I could find out, the `PhantomData`-dropck interaction *only* affects code using `may_dangle`. The documentation in the standard library has not been updated for 8 years and thus stems from a time when Rust still used "parametric dropck", before [RFC 1238](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1238-nonparametric-dropck.html). Back then what the docs said was correct, but with `may_dangle` dropck it stopped being entirely accurate and these days, with NLL, it is actively misleading.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102810
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70841
Cc `@nikomatsakis` I hope what I am saying here is right.^^
Uplift `clippy::{drop,forget}_{ref,copy}` lints
This PR aims at uplifting the `clippy::drop_ref`, `clippy::drop_copy`, `clippy::forget_ref` and `clippy::forget_copy` lints.
Those lints are/were declared in the correctness category of clippy because they lint on useless and most probably is not what the developer wanted.
## `drop_ref` and `forget_ref`
The `drop_ref` and `forget_ref` lint checks for calls to `std::mem::drop` or `std::mem::forget` with a reference instead of an owned value.
### Example
```rust
let mut lock_guard = mutex.lock();
std::mem::drop(&lock_guard) // Should have been drop(lock_guard), mutex
// still locked
operation_that_requires_mutex_to_be_unlocked();
```
### Explanation
Calling `drop` or `forget` on a reference will only drop the reference itself, which is a no-op. It will not call the `drop` or `forget` method on the underlying referenced value, which is likely what was intended.
## `drop_copy` and `forget_copy`
The `drop_copy` and `forget_copy` lint checks for calls to `std::mem::forget` or `std::mem::drop` with a value that derives the Copy trait.
### Example
```rust
let x: i32 = 42; // i32 implements Copy
std::mem::forget(x) // A copy of x is passed to the function, leaving the
// original unaffected
```
### Explanation
Calling `std::mem::forget` [does nothing for types that implement Copy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.drop.html) since the value will be copied and moved into the function on invocation.
-----
Followed the instructions for uplift a clippy describe here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99696#pullrequestreview-1134072751
cc `@m-ou-se` (as T-libs-api leader because the uplifting was discussed in a recent meeting)
