Suggest using a standalone doctest for non-local impl defs
This PR tweaks the lint output of the `non_local_definitions` lint to suggest using a standalone doctest instead of a moving the `impl` def to an impossible place as was already done with `macro_rules!` case in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124568.
Fixes#126339
r? ```@fmease```
Resolve elided lifetimes in assoc const to static if no other lifetimes are in scope
Implements the change to elided lifetime resolution in *associated consts* subject to FCP here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125190#issue-2301532282
Specifically, walk the enclosing lifetime ribs in an associated const, and if we find no other lifetimes, then resolve to `'static`.
Also make it work for traits, but don't lint -- just give a hard error in that case.
Spruce up the diagnostics of some early lints
Implement the various "*(note to myself) in a follow-up PR we should turn parts of this message into a subdiagnostic (help msg or even struct sugg)*" drive-by comments I left in #124417 during my review.
For context, before #124417, only a few early lints touched/decorated/customized their diagnostic because the former API made it a bit awkward. Likely because of that, things that should've been subdiagnostics were just crammed into the primary message. This PR rectifies this.
Convert `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to an unconditional error.
We still check for the `rental`/`allsorts-rental` crates. But now if they are detected we just emit a fatal error, instead of emitting a warning and providing alternative behaviour.
The original "hack" implementing alternative behaviour was added in #73345.
The lint was added in #83127.
The tracking issue is #83125.
The direct motivation for the change is that providing the alternative behaviour is interfering with #125174 and follow-on work.
r? ``@estebank``
A small diagnostic improvement for dropping_copy_types
For a value `m` which implements `Copy` trait, `drop(m);` does nothing.
We now suggest user to ignore it by a abstract and general note: `let _ = ...`.
I think we can give a clearer note here: `let _ = m;`
fixes#125189
<!--
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>
-->
We still check for the `rental`/`allsorts-rental` crates. But now if
they are detected we just emit a fatal error, instead of emitting a
warning and providing alternative behaviour.
The original "hack" implementing alternative behaviour was added
in #73345.
The lint was added in #83127.
The tracking issue is #83125.
The direct motivation for the change is that providing the alternative
behaviour is interfering with #125174 and follow-on work.
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
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
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.
Split Diagnostics for Uncommon Codepoints: Add Individual Identifier Types
This pull request further modifies the `uncommon_codepoints` lint, adding the individual identifier types of `Technical`, `Not_NFKC`, `Exclusion` and `Limited_Use` to the diagnostic message.
Example rendered diagnostic:
```
error: identifier contains a Unicode codepoint that is not used in normalized strings: 'ij'
--> $DIR/lint-uncommon-codepoints.rs:6:4
|
LL | fn dijkstra() {}
| ^^^^^^^
= note: this character is included in the Not_NFKC Unicode general security profile
```
Second step of #120228.
Add allow-by-default lint for unit bindings
### Example
```rust
#![warn(unit_bindings)]
macro_rules! owo {
() => {
let whats_this = ();
}
}
fn main() {
// No warning if user explicitly wrote `()` on either side.
let expr = ();
let () = expr;
let _ = ();
let _ = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
let pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
let _pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
// No warning for let bindings with unit type in macro expansions.
owo!();
// No warning if user explicitly annotates the unit type on the binding.
let pat: () = expr;
}
```
outputs
```
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:17:5
|
LL | let _ = expr;
| ^^^^-^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:3:9
|
LL | #![warn(unit_bindings)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:18:5
|
LL | let pat = expr;
| ^^^^---^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:19:5
|
LL | let _pat = expr;
| ^^^^----^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
warning: 3 warnings emitted
```
This lint is not triggered if any of the following conditions are met:
- The user explicitly annotates the binding with the `()` type.
- The binding is from a macro expansion.
- The user explicitly wrote `let () = init;`
- The user explicitly wrote `let pat = ();`. This is allowed for local lifetimes.
### Known Issue
It is known that this lint can trigger on some proc-macro generated code whose span returns false for `Span::from_expansion` because e.g. the proc-macro simply forwards user code spans, and otherwise don't have distinguishing syntax context compared to non-macro-generated code. For those kind of proc-macros, I believe the correct way to fix them is to instead emit identifers with span like `Span::mixed_site().located_at(user_span)`.
Closes#71432.
This lint is not triggered if any of the following conditions are met:
- The user explicitly annotates the binding with the `()` type.
- The binding is from a macro expansion.
- The user explicitly wrote `let () = init;`
- The user explicitly wrote `let pat = ();`. This is allowed for local
lifetimes.
Clarify `invalid_reference_casting` lint around interior mutable types
This is PR intends to clarify the `invalid_reference_casting` lint around interior mutable types by adding a note for them saying that they should go through `UnsafeCell::get`.
So for this code:
```rust
let cell = &std::cell::UnsafeCell::new(0);
let _num = &mut *(cell as *const _ as *mut i32);
```
the following note will be added to the lint output:
```diff
error: casting `&T` to `&mut T` is undefined behavior, even if the reference is unused, consider instead using an `UnsafeCell`
--> $DIR/reference_casting.rs:68:16
|
LL | let _num = &mut *(cell as *const _ as *mut i32);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: for more information, visit <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch15-05-interior-mutability.html>
+ = note: even for types with interior mutability, the only legal way to obtain a mutable pointer from a shared reference is through `UnsafeCell::get`
```
Suggestion are welcome around the note contents.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116410
cc `@RalfJung`
We're stabilizing `async fn` in trait (AFIT), but we have some
reservations about how people might use this in the definitions of
publicly-visible traits, so we're going to lint about that.
This is a bit of an odd lint for `rustc`. We normally don't lint just
to have people confirm that they understand how Rust works. But in
this one exceptional case, this seems like the right thing to do as
compared to the other plausible alternatives.
In this commit, we describe the nature of this odd lint.
Make useless_ptr_null_checks smarter about some std functions
This teaches the `useless_ptr_null_checks` lint that some std functions can't ever return null pointers, because they need to point to valid data, get references as input, etc.
This is achieved by introducing an `#[rustc_never_returns_null_ptr]` attribute and adding it to these std functions (gated behind bootstrap `cfg_attr`).
Later on, the attribute could maybe be used to tell LLVM that the returned pointer is never null. I don't expect much impact of that though, as the functions are pretty shallow and usually the input data is already never null.
Follow-up of PR #113657Fixes#114442
Add `internal_features` lint
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/596
Also requires some more test blessing for codegen tests etc
`@jyn514` had the idea of just `allow`ing the lint by default in the test suite. I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, but it's definitely one worth considering. Additional input encouraged.
Expand, rename and improve `incorrect_fn_null_checks` lint
This PR,
- firstly, expand the lint by now linting on references
- secondly, it renames the lint `incorrect_fn_null_checks` -> `useless_ptr_null_checks`
- and thirdly it improves the lint by catching `ptr::from_mut`, `ptr::from_ref`, as well as `<*mut _>::cast` and `<*const _>::cast_mut`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113601
cc ```@est31```
It lints against features that are inteded to be internal to the
compiler and standard library. Implements MCP #596.
We allow `internal_features` in the standard library and compiler as those
use many features and this _is_ the standard library from the "internal to the compiler and
standard library" after all.
Marking some features as internal wasn't exactly the most scientific approach, I just marked some
mostly obvious features. While there is a categorization in the macro,
it's not very well upheld (should probably be fixed in another PR).
We always pass `-Ainternal_features` in the testsuite
About 400 UI tests and several other tests use internal features.
Instead of throwing the attribute on each one, just always allow them.
There's nothing wrong with testing internal features^^
