Existing names for values of this type are `sess`, `parse_sess`,
`parse_session`, and `ps`. `sess` is particularly annoying because
that's also used for `Session` values, which are often co-located, and
it can be difficult to know which type a value named `sess` refers to.
(That annoyance is the main motivation for this change.) `psess` is nice
and short, which is good for a name used this much.
The commit also renames some `parse_sess_created` values as
`psess_created`.
Existing names for values of this type are `sess`, `parse_sess`,
`parse_session`, and `ps`. `sess` is particularly annoying because
that's also used for `Session` values, which are often co-located, and
it can be difficult to know which type a value named `sess` refers to.
(That annoyance is the main motivation for this change.) `psess` is nice
and short, which is good for a name used this much.
The commit also renames some `parse_sess_created` values as
`psess_created`.
Add a new `wasm32-wasip1` target to rustc
This commit adds a new target called `wasm32-wasip1` to rustc. This new target is explained in these two MCPs:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/607
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/695
In short, the previous `wasm32-wasi` target is going to be renamed to `wasm32-wasip1` to better live alongside the [new `wasm32-wasip2` target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119616). This new target is added alongside the `wasm32-wasi` target and has the exact same definition as the previous target. This PR is effectively a rename of `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1`. Note, however, that as explained in rust-lang/compiler-team#695 the previous `wasm32-wasi` target is not being removed at this time. This change will reach stable Rust before even a warning about the rename will be printed. At this time this change is just the start where a new target is introduced and users can start migrating if they support only Nightly for example.
Add missing header for `manual_is_variant_and`
Noticed this while generating our lint completions failed in rust-analyzer (separate PR from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12415 as I made these via the github interface quickly)
changelog: none
[`identity_op`]: Fix duplicate diagnostics
Relates to #12379
In the `identity_op` lint, the following diagnostic was emitted two times
```
--> tests/ui/identity_op.rs:156:5
|
LL | 1 * 1;
| ^^^^^ help: consider reducing it to: `1`
|
```
because both of the left operand and the right operand are the identity element of the multiplication.
This PR fixes the issue so that if a diagnostic is created for an operand, the check of the other operand will be skipped. It's fine because the result is always the same in the affected operators.
---
changelog: [`identity_op`]: Fix duplicate diagnostics
Check for try blocks in `question_mark` more consistently
Fixes#12337
I split this PR up into two commits since this moves a method out of an `impl`, which makes for a pretty bad diff (the `&self` parameter is now unused, and there isn't a reason for that function to be part of the `impl` now).
The first commit is the actual relevant change and the 2nd commit just moves stuff (github's "hide whitespace" makes the diff easier to look at)
------------
Now for the actual issue:
`?` within `try {}` blocks desugars to a `break` to the block, rather than a `return`, so that changes behavior in those cases.
The lint has multiple patterns to look for and in *some* of them it already does correctly check whether we're in a try block, but this isn't done for all of its patterns.
We could add another `self.inside_try_block()` check to the function that looks for `let-else-return`, but I chose to actually just move those checks out and instead have them in `LintPass::check_{stmt,expr}`. This has the advantage that we can't (easily) accidentally forget to add that check in new patterns that might be added in the future.
(There's also a bit of a subtle interaction between two lints, where `question_mark`'s LintPass calls into `manual_let_else`, so I added a check to make sure we don't avoid linting for something that doesn't have anything to do with `?`)
changelog: [`question_mark`]: avoid linting on try blocks in more cases
Unnamed union fields with enums are checked for, but if `find_field`
causes an ICE then the compiler won't get to that point.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
It turns out that the libLLVM-N.so -> libLLVM.so.N.1 symlink is
also needed when projects like miri link against librustc_driver.so.
As such, we have to distribute it in real rustup components like
rustc-dev, rather than only for download-ci-llvm.
To avoid actually distributing symlinks (which are not supported
or not fully supported by the rustup infrastructure) replace it
with a linker script that does the same thing instead.
This allows the bootstrap cache path to be set by the
`RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP_CACHE` environment variable.
Setting the bootstrap cache path to an external location can help to
speed up builds in cases where the build directory is not kept between
builds, e.g. in CI or other automated build systems.
This test won't work on windows 7, as the Thread::set_name function is
not implemented there (win7 does not provide a documented mechanism to
set thread names).
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #121130 (Suggest moving definition if non-found macro_rules! is defined later)
- #121912 (Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at)
- #121927 (Add a proper `with_no_queries` to printing)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to
recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field,
and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being
modified when making a recursive call.
Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at
Fixes#121898.
~~While it prevents an ICE and the structured suggestion is correct, the method chain diagnostic notes are weird / useless / incorrect judging by a quick look. I guess I should improve that in this PR.~~ Sufficiently taken care of.
r? estebank or compiler-errors (#105332, #105674).
fix [`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`] FP on trait projection
fixes: #9413#9319
---
changelog: fix [`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`] FP on trait projection
Well, this is awkward, it works but I don't understand why, why `clippy_utils::ty::implements_trait` couldn't detects the existance of `Eq` trait, even thought it's obviously present in the derive attribute.
