Update spelling of "referring"
I noticed that `referring` was spelled incorrectly in the output of `unexpected 'cfg' condition name` warnings; it looks like it was also incorrectly spelled in a doc comment. I've update both instances.
Fix `trimmed_def_paths` ICE in the function ptr comparison lint
This PR fixes an ICE with `trimmed_def_paths` ICE in the function ptr comparison lint, specifically when pretty-printing user types but then not using the resulting pretty-printing.
Fixes#134345
r? `@saethlin`
Hir attributes
This PR needs some explanation, it's somewhat large.
- This is step one as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/796. I've added a new `hir::Attribute` which is a lowered version of `ast::Attribute`. Right now, this has few concrete effects, however every place that after this PR parses a `hir::Attribute` should later get a pre-parsed attribute as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/796 and transitively https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229.
- an extension trait `AttributeExt` is added, which is implemented for both `ast::Attribute` and `hir::Atribute`. This makes `hir::Attributes` mostly compatible with code that used to parse `ast::Attribute`. All its methods are also added as inherent methods to avoid having to import the trait everywhere in the compiler.
- Incremental can not not hash `ast::Attribute` at all.
Add external macros specific diagnostics for check-cfg
This PR adds specific check-cfg diagnostics for unexpected cfg in external macros.
As well as hiding the some of the Cargo specific help/suggestions as they distraction for external macros and are generally not the right solution.
Follow-up to #132577
`@rustbot` label +L-unexpected_cfgs
r? compiler
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around in the HIR and mark its `DefId` in the `Resolver`. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by expansion of `mod`s with parse errors.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97734.
allow `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint in test modules
Since #133545, `x check compiler --stage 1` no longer works because compiler test modules trigger `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint errors. Bootstrap shouldn't control when to ignore or enable this lint in the compiler tree (using `Kind != Test` was ineffective for obvious reasons).
Also, conditionally adding this rustflag invalidates the build cache between `x test` and other commands.
This PR removes the `Kind` check from bootstrap and handles it directly in the compiler tree in a more natural way.
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix#97734.
Make `Copy` unsafe to implement for ADTs with `unsafe` fields
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites of that declaration also entail `unsafe`. For example, a field declared `unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example, idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Actually walk into lifetimes and attrs in `EarlyContextAndPass`
Visitors that don't also call `walk_*` are kinda a footgun...
I believe all the other early lint functions walk into their types correctly at this point.
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites
of that declaration also require `unsafe`. For example, a field declared
`unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly
discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example,
idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields
will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and
although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It
remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to
implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
Add lint against function pointer comparisons
This is kind of a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117758 where we added a lint against wide pointer comparisons for being ambiguous and unreliable; well function pointer comparisons are also unreliable. We should IMO follow a similar logic and warn people about it.
-----
## `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of function pointer as the operands.
### Example
```rust
fn foo() {}
let a = foo as fn();
let _ = a == foo;
```
### Explanation
Function pointers comparisons do not produce meaningful result since they are never guaranteed to be unique and could vary between different code generation units. Furthermore different function could have the same address after being merged together.
----
This PR also uplift the very similar `clippy::fn_address_comparisons` lint, which only linted on if one of the operand was an `ty::FnDef` while this PR lints proposes to lint on all `ty::FnPtr` and `ty::FnDef`.
```@rustbot``` labels +I-lang-nominated
~~Edit: Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/323 being accepted and it's follow-up pr~~
Reduce false positives on some common cases from if-let-rescope lint
r? `@jieyouxu`
We would like to identify a very common case in the ecosystem in which we do not need to apply the lint suggestion for the new Edition 2024 `if let` semantics.
In this patch we excluded linting from `if let`s in statements and block tail expressions. In these simple cases, new Edition 2024 drop orders are identical to those of Edition 2021 and prior.
However, conservatively we should still lint for the other cases, because [this example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=2113df5ce78f161d32a1190faf5c7469) shows that the drop order changes are very pronounced, some of which are even sensitive to runtime data.
Add visits to nodes that already have flat_maps in ast::MutVisitor
This PR aims to add `visit_` methods for every node that has a `flat_map_` in MutVisitor, giving implementers free choice over overriding `flat_map` for 1-to-n conversions or `visit` for a 1-to-1.
There is one major problem: `flat_map_stmt`.
While all other default implementations of `flat_map`s are 1-to-1 conversion, as they either only call visits or a internal 1-to-many conversions are natural, `flat_map_stmt` doesn't follow this pattern.
`flat_map_stmt`'s default implementation is a 1-to-n conversion that panics if n > 1 (effectively being a 1-to-[0;1]). This means that it cannot be used as is for a default `visit_stmt`, which would be required to be a 1-to-1.
Implementing `visit_stmt` without runtime checks would require it to reach over a potential `flat_map_item` or `filter_map_expr` overrides and call for their `visit` counterparts directly.
Other than that, if we want to keep the behavior of `flat_map_stmt` it cannot call `visit_stmt` internally.
To me, it seems reasonable to make all default implementations 1-to-1 conversions and let implementers handle `visit_stmt` if they need it, but I don't know if calling `visit` directly when a 1-to-1 is required is ok or not.
related to #128974 & #127615
r? ``@petrochenkov``
