Preserve brackets around if-lets and skip while-lets
r? `@jieyouxu`
Tracked by #124085
Fresh out of #129466, we have discovered 9 crates that the lint did not successfully migrate because the span of `if let` includes the surrounding brackets `(..)` like the following, which surprised me a bit.
```rust
if (if let .. { .. } else { .. }) {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// the span somehow includes the surrounding brackets
}
```
There is one crate that failed the migration because some suggestion spans cross the macro expansion boundaries. Surely there is no way to patch them with `match` rewrite. To handle this case, we will instead require all spans to be tested for admissibility as suggestion spans.
Besides, there are 4 false negative cases discovered with desugared-`while let`. We don't need to lint them, because the `else` branch surely contains exactly one statement because the drop order is not changed whatsoever in this case.
```rust
while let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
}
// is desugared into
loop {
if let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
} else {
break;
// here can be nothing observable in this block
}
}
```
I believe this is the one and only false positive that I have found. I think we have finally nailed all the corner cases this time.
Make clashing_extern_declarations considering generic args for ADT field
In following example, G<u16> should be recognized as different from G<u32> :
```rust
#[repr(C)] pub struct G<T> { g: [T; 4] }
pub mod x { extern "C" { pub fn g(_: super::G<u16>); } }
pub mod y { extern "C" { pub fn g(_: super::G<u32>); } }
```
fixes#130851
Revert "Add recursion limit to FFI safety lint"
It's not necessarily clear if warning when we hit the recursion limit is the right thing to do, first of all.
**More importantly**, this PR was implemented incorrectly in the first place; it was not decrementing the recursion limit when stepping out of a type, so it would trigger when a ctype has more than RECURSION_LIMIT fields *anywhere* in the type's set of recursively reachable fields.
Reverts #130598Reopens#130310Fixes#130757
Rework `non_local_definitions` lint to only use a syntactic heuristic
This PR reworks the `non_local_definitions` lint to only use a syntactic heuristic, i.e. not use a type-system logic for whenever an `impl` is local or not.
Instead the new logic wanted by T-lang in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126768#issuecomment-2192634762, which is to consider every paths in `Self` and `Trait` and to no longer use the type-system inference trick.
`@rustbot` labels +L-non_local_definitions
Fixes#126768
Explain why `non_snake_case` is skipped for binary crates and cleanup tests
- Explain `non_snake_case` lint is skipped for bin crate names because binaries are not intended to be distributed or consumed like library crates (#45127).
- Coalesce the bunch of tests into a single one but with revisions, which is easier to compare the differences for `non_snake_case` behavior with respect to crate types.
Follow-up to #121749 with some more comments and test cleanup.
cc `@saethlin` who bumped into one of the tests and was confused why it was `only-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`.
try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
compiler: factor out `OVERFLOWING_LITERALS` impl
This puts it into `rustc_lint/src/types/literal.rs`. It then uses the fact that it's easier to navigate the logic to identify something that can easily be factored out, as an instance of "why".
Add recursion limit to FFI safety lint
Fixes#130310
Now we check against `tcx.recursion_limit()` and raise an error if it the limit is reached instead of overflowing the stack.
Improve handling of raw-idents in check-cfg
This PR improves the handling of raw-idents in the check-cfg diagnostics.
In particular the list of expected names and the suggestion now correctly take into account the "keyword-ness" of the ident, and correctly prefix the ident with `r#` when necessary.
`@rustbot` labels +F-check-cfg
Make some lint doctests compatible with `--stage=0`
Currently, running `x test compiler --stage=0` (with `rust.parallel-compiler=false` to avoid other problems) results in two failures, because these lint doctests aren't compatible with the current stage0 compiler.
In theory, the more “correct” solution would be to wrap the opening triple-backtick line in `#[cfg_attr(not(bootstrap), doc = "..."]`. However, that causes a few practical problems:
- `tidy` doesn't understand that syntax, and miscounts the number of backticks in the comment block.
- `lint-docs` doesn't understand that syntax, and thinks it's trying to declare the lint name.
- Working around the above problems would cause more work and more confusion for whoever does the next bootstrap beta bump.
So instead this PR adds some bootstrap gates inside the individual doctests, which end up producing the desired behaviour, and are straightforward to remove.
const-eval interning: accept interior mutable pointers in final value
…but keep rejecting mutable references
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121610 by no longer firing the lint when there is a pointer with interior mutability in the final value of the constant. On stable, such pointers can be created with code like:
```rust
pub enum JsValue {
Undefined,
Object(Cell<bool>),
}
impl Drop for JsValue {
fn drop(&mut self) {}
}
// This does *not* get promoted since `JsValue` has a destructor.
// However, the outer scope rule applies, still giving this 'static lifetime.
const UNDEFINED: &JsValue = &JsValue::Undefined;
```
It's not great to accept such values since people *might* think that it is legal to mutate them with unsafe code. (This is related to how "infectious" `UnsafeCell` is, which is a [wide open question](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/236).) However, we [explicitly document](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html) that things created by `const` are immutable. Furthermore, we also accept the following even more questionable code without any lint today:
```rust
let x: &'static Option<Cell<i32>> = &None;
```
This is even more questionable since it does *not* involve a `const`, and yet still puts the data into immutable memory. We could view this as promotion [potentially introducing UB](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493). However, we've accepted this since ~forever and it's [too late to reject this now](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122789); the pattern is just too useful.
So basically, if you think that `UnsafeCell` should be tracked fully precisely, then you should want the lint we currently emit to be removed, which this PR does. If you think `UnsafeCell` should "infect" surrounding `enum`s, the big problem is really https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493 which does not trigger the lint -- the cases the lint triggers on are actually the "harmless" ones as there is an explicit surrounding `const` explaining why things end up being immutable.
What all this goes to show is that the hard error added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 (later turned into the future-compat lint that I am now suggesting we remove) was based on some wrong assumptions, at least insofar as it concerns shared references. Furthermore, that lint does not help at all for the most problematic case here where the potential UB is completely implicit. (In fact, the lint is actively in the way of [my preferred long-term strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493#issuecomment-2028674105) for dealing with this UB.) So I think we should go back to square one and remove that error/lint for shared references. For mutable references, it does seem to work as intended, so we can keep it. Here it serves as a safety net in case the static checks that try to contain mutable references to the inside of a const initializer are not working as intended; I therefore made the check ICE to encourage users to tell us if that safety net is triggered.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122153 by removing the lint.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@rust-lang/lang`
Failing to do this results in the lint example output complaining
about the lint not existing instead of the thing the lint is supposed
to be complaining about.
- Replace non-standard names like 's, 'p, 'rg, 'ck, 'parent, 'this, and
'me with vanilla 'a. These are cases where the original name isn't
really any more informative than 'a.
- Replace names like 'cx, 'mir, and 'body with vanilla 'a when the lifetime
applies to multiple fields and so the original lifetime name isn't
really accurate.
- Put 'tcx last in lifetime lists, and 'a before 'b.
Rescope temp lifetime in if-let into IfElse with migration lint
Tracking issue #124085
This PR shortens the temporary lifetime to cover only the pattern matching and consequent branch of a `if let`.
At the expression location, means that the lifetime is shortened from previously the deepest enclosing block or statement in Edition 2021. This warrants an Edition change.
Coming with the Edition change, this patch also implements an edition lint to warn about the change and a safe rewrite suggestion to preserve the 2021 semantics in most cases.
Related to #103108.
Related crater runs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129466.
Simplify some nested `if` statements
Applies some but not all instances of `clippy::collapsible_if`. Some ended up looking worse afterwards, though, so I left those out. Also applies instances of `clippy::collapsible_else_if`
Review with whitespace disabled please.
