Update `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config
This PR updates the diagnostics output of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config.
It's a simple and cost-less alternative to the build-script `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` instruction.
```toml
[lints.rust]
unexpected_cfgs = { level = "warn", check-cfg = ['cfg(foo, values("bar"))'] }
```
This PR also adds a Cargo specific section regarding check-cfg and Cargo inside rustc's book (motivation is described inside the file, but mainly check-cfg is a rustc feature not a Cargo one, Cargo only enabled the feature, it does not own it; T-cargo even considers the `check-cfg` lint config to be an implementation detail).
This PR also updates the links to refer to that sub-page when using Cargo from rustc.
As well as updating the lint doc to refer to the check-cfg docs.
~**Not to be merged before https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/13913 reaches master!**~ (EDIT: merged in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125237)
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@fmease` *(feel free to roll)*
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124800
cc `@epage` `@weihanglo`
Unfortunately, we can't always offer a machine-applicable suggestion when there are subpatterns from macro expansion.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Boisseau <Nadrieril@users.noreply.github.com>
Lazily normalize inside trait ref during orphan check & consider ty params in rigid alias types to be uncovered
Fixes#99554, fixesrust-lang/types-team#104.
Fixes#114061.
Supersedes #100555.
Tracking issue for the future compatibility lint: #124559.
r? lcnr
Remove many `#[macro_use] extern crate foo` items
This requires the addition of more `use` items, which often make the code more verbose. But they also make the code easier to read, because `#[macro_use]` obscures where macros are defined.
r? `@fee1-dead`
Split refining_impl_trait lint into _reachable, _internal variants
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119535#issuecomment-1909352040:
> We discussed this today in triage and developed a consensus to:
>
> * Add a separate lint against impls that refine a return type defined with RPITIT even when the trait is not crate public.
> * Place that in a lint group along with the analogous crate public lint.
> * Create an issue to solicit feedback on these lints (or perhaps two separate ones).
> * Have the warnings displayed with each lint reference this issue in a similar manner to how we do that today with the required `Self: '0'` bound on GATs.
> * Make a note to review this feedback on 2-3 release cycles.
This points users to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718 to leave feedback.
Fix the conflict problem between the diagnostics fixes of lint `unnecessary_qualification` and `unused_imports`
fixes#121331
For an `item` that triggers lint unnecessary_qualification, if the `use item` which imports this item is also trigger unused import, fixing the two lints at the same time may lead to the problem that the `item` cannot be found.
This PR will avoid reporting lint unnecessary_qualification when conflict occurs.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Ungate the `UNKNOWN_OR_MALFORMED_DIAGNOSTIC_ATTRIBUTES` lint
This was missed during stablisation of the `#[diagnostic]` attribute namespace.
Fixes#122446
Change leak check and suspicious auto trait lint warning messages
The leak check lint message "this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!" is misleading as some cases may not be phased out and could end being accepted. This is under discussion still.
The suspicious auto trait lint the change in behavior already happened, so the new message is probably more accurate.
r? `@lcnr`
Closes#93367
Extend Level API
I need this API for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12303: I have a nested `cfg` attribute (so a `MetaItem`) and I'd like to still be able to match against all possible kind of `Level`s.
