refactor `AttributeGate` and `rustc_attr!` to emit notes during feature checking
First commit changes the following:
- `AttributeGate ` from an enum with (four) tuple fields to (five) named fields
- adds a `notes` fields that is emitted as notes in the `PostExpansionVisitor` pass
- removes the `this compiler was built on YYYY-MM-DD; consider upgrading it if it is out of date` note if the feature gate is `rustc_attrs`.
- various phrasing changes and touchups
- and finally, the reason why I went down this path to begin with: tell people they can use the diagnostic namespace when they hit the rustc_on_unimplemented feature gate 🙈
Second commit removes unused machinery for deprecated attributes
Add a new `mismatched-lifetime-syntaxes` lint
The lang-team [discussed this](https://hackmd.io/nf4ZUYd7Rp6rq-1svJZSaQ) and I attempted to [summarize](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120808#issuecomment-2701863833) their decision. The summary-of-the-summary is:
- Using two different kinds of syntax for elided lifetimes is confusing. In rare cases, it may even [lead to unsound code](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48686)! Some examples:
```rust
// Lint will warn about these
fn(v: ContainsLifetime) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
fn(&'static u8) -> &u8;
```
- Matching up references with no lifetime syntax, references with anonymous lifetime syntax, and paths with anonymous lifetime syntax is an exception to the simplest possible rule:
```rust
// Lint will not warn about these
fn(&u8) -> &'_ u8;
fn(&'_ u8) -> &u8;
fn(&u8) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
```
- Having a lint for consistent syntax of elided lifetimes will make the [future goal](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91639) of warning-by-default for paths participating in elision much simpler.
---
This new lint attempts to accomplish the goal of enforcing consistent syntax. In the process, it supersedes and replaces the existing `elided-named-lifetimes` lint, which means it starts out life as warn-by-default.
Use `cfg_attr_trace` in AST with a placeholder attribute for accurate suggestion
In rust-lang/rust#138515, we insert a placeholder attribute so that checks for attributes can still know about the placement of `cfg` attributes. When we suggest removing items with `cfg_attr`s (fixrust-lang/rust#56328) and make them verbose. We tweak the wording of the existing "unused `extern crate`" lint.
```
warning: unused `extern crate`
--> $DIR/removing-extern-crate.rs:9:1
|
LL | extern crate removing_extern_crate as foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unused
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/removing-extern-crate.rs:6:9
|
LL | #![warn(rust_2018_idioms)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: `#[warn(unused_extern_crates)]` implied by `#[warn(rust_2018_idioms)]`
help: remove the unused `extern crate`
|
LL - #[cfg_attr(test, macro_use)]
LL - extern crate removing_extern_crate as foo;
|
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
try-job: x86_64-gnu-aux
PR 138515, we insert a placeholder attribute so that checks for attributes can still know about the placement of `cfg` attributes. When we suggest removing items with `cfg_attr`s (fix Issue 56328) and make them verbose. We tweak the wording of the existing "unused `extern crate`" lint.
```
warning: unused extern crate
--> $DIR/removing-extern-crate.rs:9:1
|
LL | extern crate removing_extern_crate as foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unused
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/removing-extern-crate.rs:6:9
|
LL | #![warn(rust_2018_idioms)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: `#[warn(unused_extern_crates)]` implied by `#[warn(rust_2018_idioms)]`
help: remove the unused `extern crate`
|
LL - #[cfg_attr(test, macro_use)]
LL - extern crate removing_extern_crate as foo;
LL +
|
```
Make two transmute-related MIR lints into HIR lint
Make `PTR_TO_INTEGER_TRANSMUTE_IN_CONSTS` (rust-lang/rust#130540) and `UNNECESSARY_TRANSMUTES` (rust-lang/rust#136083) into "normal" HIR-based lints.
Funny enough this came up in the review of the latter (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136083#issuecomment-2614301413), but I guess it just was overlooked.
But anywyas, there's no reason for these to be MIR lints; in fact, it makes the suggestions for them a bit more complicated than necessary.
Note that there's probably a few more simplifications and improvements to be done here. Follow-ups can be done in a separate PR, especially if they're about the messaging and suggestions themselves, which I didn't write.
Improve `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint compare diagnostics
This PR improves the `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint compare diagnostics: `cmp`/`partial_cmp`, but also the operators `<`/`>`/`>=`/`<=`, by:
1. removing the reference to `std::ptr::addr_eq` which only works for equality
2. and adding an `#[expect]` suggestion for keeping the current behavior
Fixesrust-lang/rust#141510
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #140056 (Fix a wrong error message in 2024 edition)
- #140220 (Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it)
- #140249 (Remove `weak` alias terminology)
- #140316 (Introduce `BoxMarker` to improve pretty-printing correctness)
- #140347 (ci: clean more disk space in codebuild)
- #140349 (ci: use aws codebuild for the `dist-x86_64-linux` job)
- #140379 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
```
warning: cannot find macro `in_root` in the crate root
--> $DIR/key-value-expansion-scope.rs:1:10
|
LL | #![doc = in_root!()]
| ^^^^^^^ not found in the crate root
|
= warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
= note: for more information, see issue #124535 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535>
= help: import `macro_rules` with `use` to make it callable above its definition
= note: `#[warn(out_of_scope_macro_calls)]` on by default
```
Make the wasm_c_abi future compat warning a hard error
This is the next step in getting rid of the broken C abi for wasm32-unknown-unknown.
The lint was made deny-by-default in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129534 3 months ago. This still keeps the `-Zwasm-c-abi` flag set to `legacy` by default. It will be flipped in a future PR.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122532
[AIX] Lint on structs that have a different alignment in AIX's C ABI
This PR adds a linting diagnostic on AIX for repr(C) structs that are required to follow
the power alignment rule. A repr(C) struct needs to follow the power alignment rule if
the struct:
- Has a floating-point data type (greater than 4-bytes) as its first member, or
- The first member of the struct is an aggregate, whose recursively first member is a
floating-point data type (greater than 4-bytes).
The power alignment rule for eligible structs is currently unimplemented, so a linting
diagnostic is produced when such a struct is encountered.
`CheckAttrVisitor::check_doc_keyword` checks `#[doc(keyword = "..")]`
attributes to ensure they are on an empty module, and that the value is
a non-empty identifier.
The `rustc::existing_doc_keyword` lint checks these attributes to ensure
that the value is the name of a keyword.
It's silly to have two different checking mechanisms for these
attributes. This commit does the following.
- Changes `check_doc_keyword` to check that the value is the name of a
keyword (avoiding the need for the identifier check, which removes a
dependency on `rustc_lexer`).
- Removes the lint.
- Updates tests accordingly.
There is one hack: the `SelfTy` FIXME case used to used to be handled by
disabling the lint, but now is handled with a special case in
`is_doc_keyword`. That hack will go away if/when the FIXME is fixed.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume1.gomez@gmail.com>
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 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~~
