unify query canonicalization mode
Exclude from canonicalization only the static lifetimes that appear in the param env because of #118965 . Any other occurrence can be canonicalized safely AFAICT.
r? `@lcnr`
Separate move path tracking between borrowck and drop elaboration.
The primary goal of this PR is to skip creating a `MovePathIndex` for path that do not need dropping in drop elaboration.
The 2 first commits are cleanups.
The next 2 commits displace `move` errors from move-path builder to borrowck. Move-path builder keeps the same logic, but does not carry error information any more.
The remaining commits allow to filter `MovePathIndex` creation according to types. This is used in drop elaboration, to avoid computing dataflow for paths that do not need dropping.
Location-insensitive polonius: consider a loan escaping if an SCC has member constraints applied only
The location-insensitive analysis considered loans to escape if there were member constraints, which makes *some* sense for scopes and matches the scopes that NLL computes on all the tests.
However, polonius and NLLs differ on the fuzzed case #116657, where an SCC has member constraints but no applied ones (and is kinda surprising). The existing UI tests with member constraints impacting scopes all have some constraint applied.
This PR changes the location-insensitive analysis to consider a loan to escape if there are applied member constraints, and for extra paranoia/insurance via fuzzing and crater: actually checks the constraint's min choice is indeed a universal region as we expect. (This could be turned into a `debug_assert` and early return as a slight optimization after these periods of verification)
The 4 UI tests where member constraints are meaningful for computing scopes still pass obviously, and this also fixes#116657.
r? `@matthewjasper`
The FIXME was added in 46984 when the diagnostic message looked like
this:
// FIXME(#46983): error message should be better
&s.0 //~ ERROR free region `` does not outlive free region `'static`
The message was improved in 90667 and now looks like this:
&s.0 //~ ERROR lifetime may not live long enough
but the FIXME was not removed. The issue 46983 about that diagnostics
should be improved has been closed. We can remove the FIXME now.
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
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)
