Added restriction lint: pattern-type-mismatch
changelog: Added a new restriction lint `pattern-type-mismatch`. This lint is especially helpful for beginners learning about the magic behind pattern matching. (This explanation might be worth to include in the next changelog.)
This commit modifies the Place as follow:
* remove 'ty' from ProjectionKind
* add type information into to Projection
* replace 'ty' in Place with 'base_ty'
* introduce 'ty()' in `Place` to return the final type of the `Place`
* introduce `ty_before_projection()` in `Place` to return the type of
a `Place` before i'th projection is applied
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/5
Rollup of 13 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #72620 (Omit DW_AT_linkage_name when it is the same as DW_AT_name)
- #72967 (Don't move cursor in search box when using arrows to navigate results)
- #73102 (proc_macro: Stop flattening groups with dummy spans)
- #73297 (Support configurable deny-warnings for all in-tree crates.)
- #73507 (Cleanup MinGW LLVM linkage workaround)
- #73588 (Fix handling of reserved registers for ARM inline asm)
- #73597 (Record span of `const` kw in GenericParamKind)
- #73629 (Make AssocOp Copy)
- #73681 (Update Chalk to 0.14)
- #73707 (Fix links in `SliceIndex` documentation)
- #73719 (emitter: column width defaults to 140)
- #73729 (disable collectionbenches for android)
- #73748 (Add code block to code in documentation of `List::rebase_onto`)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Record span of `const` kw in GenericParamKind
Context: this is needed for a fix of https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/4263,
which currently records the span of a const generic param incorrectly
because the location of the `const` kw is not known.
I am not sure how to add tests for this; any guidance in how to do so
would be appreciated 🙂
cmp_owned: handle when PartialEq is not implemented symmetrically
changelog: Handle asymmetrical implementations of PartialEq in [`cmp_owned`].
Fixes#4874
clone_on_copy - add machine applicability
Fix#4826.
Change the applicability of the lint clone_on_copy. Split a test file and run rustfix on the clone_on_copy part.
changelog: clone_on_copy - add machine applicability
Context: this is needed to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/4263,
which currently records the span of a const generic param incorrectly
because the location of the `const` kw is not known.
I am not sure how to add tests for this; any guidance in how to do so
would be appreciated 🙂
#5626: lint iterator.map(|x| x)
changelog: adds a new lint for iterator.map(|x| x) (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5626)
The code also lints for result.map(|x| x) and option.map(|x| x). Also, I'm not sure if I'm checking for type adjustments correctly and I can't think of an example where .map(|x| x) would apply type adjustments.
Downgrade unnested_or_patterns to pedantic
Even with #5704 fixed, I don't believe it is a safe bet that if someone is using or-patterns anywhere in a codebase then they want to use it as much as possible in the whole codebase. I think it would be reasonable to reevaluate after the feature is stable. I feel that a warn-by-default lint suggesting use of an unstable feature, even if already being used in one place, is questionable.
changelog: Remove unnested_or_patterns from default set of enabled lints
The code should to check that the current expression _is_ the end
expression; not that it's equal to it. The equality check seems very
wasteful in terms of performance.
New lint: suggest `ptr::read` instead of `mem::replace(..., uninitialized())`
resolves: #5575
changelog: improvements to `MEM_REPLACE_WITH_UNINIT`:
- add a new test case in `tests/ui/repl_uninit.rs` to cover the case of replacing with `mem::MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init()`.
- modify the existing `MEM_REPLACE_WITH_UNINIT` when replacing with `mem::uninitialized` to suggest using `ptr::read` instead.
- lint with `MEM_REPLACE_WITH_UNINIT` when replacing with `mem::MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init()`
For the following code
```rust
let c = || bar(foo.x, foo.x)
```
We generate two different `hir::Place`s for both `foo.x`.
Handling this adds overhead for analysis we need to do for RFC 2229.
We also want to store type information at each Projection to support
analysis as part of the RFC. This resembles what we have for
`mir::Place`
This commit modifies the Place as follows:
- Rename to `PlaceWithHirId`, where there `hir_id` is that of the
expressioin.
- Move any other information that describes the access out to another
struct now called `Place`.
- Removed `Span`, it can be accessed using the [hir
API](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/hir/map/struct.Map.html#method.span)
- Modify `Projection` to be a strucutre of its own, that currently only
contains the `ProjectionKind`.
Adding type information to projections wil be completed as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/5
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/3
Co-authored-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>
Co-authored-by: Roxane Fruytier <roxane.fruytier@hotmail.com>
Stabilize Option::zip
This PR stabilizes the following API:
```rust
impl<T> Option<T> {
pub fn zip<U>(self, other: Option<U>) -> Option<(T, U)>;
}
```
This API has real world usage as seen in <https://grep.app/search?q=-%3E%20Option%3C%5C%28T%2C%5Cs%3FU%5C%29%3E®exp=true&filter[lang][0]=Rust>.
The `zip_with` method is left unstably as this API is kinda niche
and it hasn't received much usage in Rust repositories on GitHub.
cc #70086
Clean up type alias impl trait implementation
- Removes special case for top-level impl trait
- Removes associated opaque types
- Forbid lifetime elision in let position impl trait. This is consistent with the behavior for inferred types.
- Handle lifetimes in type alias impl trait more uniformly with other parameters
cc #69323
cc #63063Closes#57188Closes#62988Closes#69136Closes#73061
let_and_return: avoid "does not live long enough" errors
EDIT: Add #3324 to the list of fixes
<details>
<summary>Description of old impl</summary>
<br>
Avoid suggesting turning the RHS expression of the last statement into the block tail expression if a temporary borrows from a local that would be destroyed before.
This is my first incursion into MIR so there's probably room for improvement!
</details>
Avoid linting if the return type of some method or function called in the last statement has a lifetime parameter.
changelog: Fix false positive in [`let_and_return`]
Fixes#3792Fixes#3324
Make `PolyTraitRef::self_ty` return `Binder<Ty>`
This came up during review of #71618. The current implementation is the same as a call to `skip_binder` but harder to audit. Make it preserve binding levels and add a call to `skip_binder` at all use sites so they can be audited as part of #72507.
Give corrected code
This PR adds corrected code for doc examples.
I did this in several commits to facilitate review.
Don't hesitate to tell me if I forgot some.
Also, sometimes I felt it was not necessary to give corrected code, but I maybe wrong.
fixes: #4829
changelog: Improve documentation examples across multiple lints.
New lint: iter_next_slice
Hello, this is a work-in-progress PR for issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5572
I have implemented lint to replace `iter().next()` for `slice[index..]` and `array` with `get(index)` and `get(0)` respectively. However since I made a lot of changes, I would like to request some feedback before continuing so that I could fix mistakes.
Thank you!
---
changelog: implement `iter_next_slice` lint and test, and modify `needless_continues`, `for_loop_over_options_result` UI tests since they have `iter().next()`
Add regression test for endless loop / update `pulldown_cmark`
Closes#4917
This was fixed in pulldown_cmark 0.7.1, specifically raphlinus/pulldown-cmark#438
changelog: none
Rework suggestion generation of `unit_arg` lint
Found this bug while running `cargo fix --clippy` on quite a big codebase:
This would replace something like:
```rust
Some(fn_that_actually_does_something(&a, b))
```
with
```rust
Some(())
```
which obviously suppresses side effects.
Since pretty much every expression could have side effects, I think making this suggestion `MaybeIncorrect` is the best thing to do here.
A correct suggestion would be:
```rust
fn_that_actually_does_something(&a, b);
Some(())
```
Somehow the suggestion is not correctly applied to the arguments, when more than one argument is a unit value. I have to look into this a little more, though.
changelog: Fixes suggestion of `unit_arg` lint, so that it suggests semantic equivalent code
Fixes#4741
len_zero: skip ranges if feature `range_is_empty` is not enabled
If the feature is not enabled, calling `is_empty()` on a range is ambiguous. Moreover, the two possible resolutions are unstable methods, one inherent to the range and the other being part of the `ExactSizeIterator` trait.
Since `len_zero` only checks for existing `is_empty()` inherent methods, we only take into account the `range_is_empty` feature.
Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48111#issuecomment-445132965
changelog: len_zero: avoid linting ranges without #![feature(range_is_empty)]
Fixes: #3807
Extend useless conversion
This PR extends `useless_conversion` lint with `TryFrom` and `TryInto`
fixes: #5344
changelog: Extend `useless_conversion` with `TryFrom` and `TryInto`
Make empty_line_after_outer_attr an early lint
Fixes#5567
Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to reproduce the issue without syn/quote. Considering that most real-world macros use syn and/or quote, I think it's okay to pull them in anyway.
changelog: Fix false positive in [`empty_line_after_outer_attr`]
reversed_empty_ranges: add suggestion for &slice[N..N]
As discussed in the issue thread, the user accepted this solution. Let me know if this is what we want, or if changing the way we lint the N..N case is prefered.
changelog: reversed_empty_ranges: add suggestion for &slice[N..N]
Closes#5628
ptr_arg: honor `allow` attribute on arguments
The `intravisit::Visitor` impl for `LateContextAndPass` only takes into account the attributes of a function parameter inside the `check_param` method. `ptr_arg` starts its heuristics at `check_item` / `check_impl_item` / `check_trait_item`, so the `allow` is not taken into account automatically.
changelog: ptr_arg: honor `allow` attribute on arguments
Fixes#5644
new_without_default: do not suggest deriving
---
changelog: do not suggest deriving `Default` in `new_without_default`
This commit changes the behavior of the `new_without_default` lint to not suggest deriving `Default`. This suggestion is misleading if the `new` implementation does something different than what a derived `Default` implementation would do, because then the two methods would not be equivalent.
Instead, the `can_derive_default` check is removed, and we always suggest implementing `Default` in terms of `new()`.
Clarify the documentation of the `unnecessary_mut_passed` lint
fixes#5433 by replacing "giving" with "passing"
changelog: Clarifies documentation for `unnecessary_mut_passed`
Add to the list of words clippy::doc_markdown ignores
"TypeScript" is the only one of these I actually ran into organically; I can remove the others if they're too much.
changelog: Add to the list of words `clippy::doc_markdown` ignores
New lint: `match_wildcard_for_single_variants`
changelog: Added a new lint match_wildcard_for_single_variants to warn on enum matches where a wildcard is used to match a single variant
Closes#5556
Rename lint `identity_conversion` to `useless_conversion`
Lint name `identity_conversion` was misleading, so this PR renames it to `useless_conversion`.
As decision has not really came up in the issue comments, this PR will probably need discussion.
fixes#3106
changelog: Rename lint `identity_conversion` to `useless_conversion`
Merge some lints together
This PR merges following lints:
- `block_in_if_condition_expr` and `block_in_if_condition_stmt` → `blocks_in_if_conditions`
- `option_map_unwrap_or`, `option_map_unwrap_or_else` and `result_map_unwrap_or_else` → `map_unwrap`
- `option_unwrap_used` and `result_unwrap_used` → `unwrap_used`
- `option_expect_used` and `result_expect_used` → `expect_used`
- `wrong_pub_self_convention` into `wrong_self_convention`
- `for_loop_over_option` and `for_loop_over_result` → `for_loops_over_fallibles`
Lints that have already been merged since the issue was created:
- [x] `new_without_default` and `new_without_default_derive` → `new_without_default`
Need more discussion:
- `string_add` and `string_add_assign`: do we agree to merge them or not? Is there something more to do? → **not merge finally**
- `identity_op` and `modulo_one` → `useless_arithmetic`: seems outdated, since `modulo_arithmetic` has been created.
fixes#1078
changelog: Merging some lints together:
- `block_in_if_condition_expr` and `block_in_if_condition_stmt` → `blocks_in_if_conditions`
- `option_map_unwrap_or`, `option_map_unwrap_or_else` and `result_map_unwrap_or_else` → `map_unwrap_or`
- `option_unwrap_used` and `result_unwrap_used` → `unwrap_used`
- `option_expect_used` and `result_expect_used` → `expect_used`
- `for_loop_over_option` and `for_loop_over_result` → `for_loops_over_fallibles`
Literal error reporting cleanup
While doing some performance work, I noticed some code duplication in `librustc_parser/lexer/mod.rs`, so I cleaned it up.
This PR is probably best reviewed commit by commit.
I'm not sure what the API stability practices for `librustc_lexer` are. Four public methods in `unescape.rs` can be removed, but two are used by clippy, so I left them in for now.
I could open a PR for Rust-Analyzer when this one lands.
But how do I open a PR for clippy? (Git submodules are frustrating to work with)
identity_op: allow `1 << 0`
I went for accepting `1 << 0` verbatim instead of something more general as it seems to be what everyone in the issue thread needed.
changelog: identity_op: allow `1 << 0` as it's a common pattern in bit manipulation code.
Fixes#3430
Downgrade useless_let_if_seq to nursery
I feel that this lint has the wrong balance of incorrect suggestions for a default-enabled lint.
The immediate code I faced was something like:
```rust
fn main() {
let mut good = do1();
if !do2() {
good = false;
}
if good {
println!("good");
}
}
fn do1() -> bool { println!("1"); false }
fn do2() -> bool { println!("2"); false }
```
On this code Clippy calls it unidiomatic and suggests the following diff, which has different behavior in a way that I don't necessarily want.
```diff
- let mut good = do1();
- if !do2() {
- good = false;
- }
+ let good = if !do2() {
+ false
+ } else {
+ do1()
+ };
```
On exploring issues filed about this lint, I have found that other users have also struggled with inappropriate suggestions (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/4124, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3043, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2918, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2176) and suggestions that make the code worse (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3769, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2749). Overall I believe that this lint is still at nursery quality for now and should not be enabled.
---
changelog: Remove useless_let_if_seq from default set of enabled lints
Reversed empty ranges
This lint checks range expressions with inverted limits which result in empty ranges. This includes also the ranges used to index slices.
The lint reverse_range_loop was covering iteration of reversed ranges in a for loop, which is a subset of what this new lint covers, so it has been removed. I'm not sure if that's the best choice. It would be doable to check in the new lint that we are not in the arguments of a for loop; I went for removing it because the logic was too similar to keep them separated.
changelog: Added reversed_empty_ranges lint that checks for ranges where the limits have been inverted, resulting in empty ranges. Removed reverse_range_loop which was covering a subset of the new lint.
Closes#4192Closes#96
Extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.
---
changelog: extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Fix match on vec items: match on vec[..]
- Added new tests
- Fixed false positive when matching on full range, which will never panic
Closes#5551
changelog: fix match_on_vec_items when matching full range
Fix `unnecessary_unwrap` lint when checks are done in parameters
Fixes a false positive in `unnecessary_unwrap` lint when checks are done in macro parameters.
FIxes#5174
changelog: Fixes a false positive in `unnecessary_unwrap` lint when checks are done in macro parameters.
Fix FP on while-let-on-iterator
- fix `is_refutable` for slice patterns
- fix `is_refutable` for bindings
- add some TODO-s for cases, which can not be fixed easily
fixes#3780
changelog: fix FP on while-let-on-iterator for arrays and bindings
Implement the manual_non_exhaustive lint
Some implementation notes:
* Not providing automatic fixups because additional changes may be needed in other parts of the code, e.g. when constructing a struct.
* Even though the attribute is valid on enum variants, it's not possible to use the manual implementation of the pattern because the visibility is always public, so the lint ignores enum variants.
* Unit structs are also ignored, it's not possible to implement the pattern manually without fields.
* The attribute is not accepted in unions, so those are ignored too.
* Even though the original issue did not mention it, tuple structs are also linted because it's possible to apply the pattern manually.
changelog: Added the manual non-exhaustive implementation lint
Closes#2017
Fix the bugs of `manual_memcpy`, simplify the suggestion and refactor it
While I’m working on the long procrastinated work to expand `manual_memcpy`(#1670), I found a few minor bugs and probably unidiomatic or old coding style. There is a brief explanation of changes to the behaviour this PR will make below. And, I have a questoin: do I need to add tests for the first and second fixed bugs? I thought it might be too rare cases to include the tests for those. I added for the last one though.
* Bug fix
* It negates resulted offsets (`src/dst_offset`) when `offset` is subtraction by 0. This PR will remove any subtraction by 0 as a part of minification.
```rust
for i in 0..5 {
dst[i - 0] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..5 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..-5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
|
```
* It prints `RangeTo` or `RangeFull` when both of `end` and `offset` are 0, which have different meaning. This PR will print 0. I could reject the cases `end` is 0, but I thought I won’t catch other cases `reverse_range_loop` will trigger, and it’s over to catch every such cases.
```rust
for i in 0..0 {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..0 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst.clone_from_slice(&src[..])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..0].clone_from_slice(&src[..0])`
|
```
* it prints four dots when `end` is `None`. This PR will ignore any `for` loops without `end` because a `for` loop that takes `RangeFrom` as its argument and contains indexing without the statements or the expressions that end loops such as `break` will definitely panic, and `manual_memcpy` should ignore the loops with such control flow.
```rust
fn manual_copy(src: &[u32], dst: &mut [u32]) {
for i in 0.. {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
}
```
```diff
-warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
- --> src/main.rs:2:14
- |
-LL | for i in 0.. {
- | ^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[....].clone_from_slice(&src[....])`
- |
```
* Simplification of the suggestion
* It prints 0 when `start` or `end` and `offset` are same (from #3323). This PR will use `RangeTo`
changelog: fixed the bugs of `manual_memcpy` and also simplify the suggestion.
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.
New lint `match_vec_item`
Added new lint to warn a match on index item which can panic. It's always better to use `get(..)` instead.
Closes#5500
changelog: New lint `match_on_vec_items`
- Show just one error message with multiple suggestions in case of
using multiple times an OS in target family position
- Only suggest #[cfg(unix)] when the OS is in the Unix family
- Test all the operating systems
Don't trigger while_let_on_iterator when the iterator is recreated every iteration
r? @phansch
Fixes#1654
changelog: Fix false positive in [`while_let_on_iterator`]
Downgrade match_bool to pedantic
I don't quite buy the justification in https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/. The justification is:
> It makes the code less readable.
In the Rust codebases I've worked in, I have found people were comfortable using `match bool` (selectively) to make code more readable. For example, initializing struct fields is a place where the indentation of `match` can work better than the indentation of `if`:
```rust
let _ = Struct {
v: {
...
},
w: match doing_w {
true => ...,
false => ...,
},
x: Nested {
c: ...,
b: ...,
a: ...,
},
y: if doing_y {
...
} else { // :(
...
},
z: ...,
};
```
Or sometimes people prefer something a bit less pithy than `if` when the meaning of the bool doesn't read off clearly from the condition:
```rust
if set.insert(...) {
... // ???
} else {
...
}
match set.insert(...) {
// set.insert returns false if already present
false => ...,
true => ...,
}
```
Or `match` can be a better fit when the bool is playing the role more of a value than a branch condition:
```rust
impl ErrorCodes {
pub fn from(b: bool) -> Self {
match b {
true => ErrorCodes::Yes,
false => ErrorCodes::No,
}
}
}
```
And then there's plain old it's-1-line-shorter, which means we get 25% more content on a screen when stacking a sequence of conditions:
```rust
let old_noun = match old_binding.is_import() {
true => "import",
false => "definition",
};
let new_participle = match new_binding.is_import() {
true => "imported",
false => "defined",
};
```
Bottom line is I think this lint fits the bill better as a pedantic lint; I don't think linting on this by default is justified.
changelog: Remove match_bool from default set of enabled lints
Fixes#4226
This introduces the lint await_holding_lock. For async functions, we iterate
over all types in generator_interior_types and look for types named MutexGuard,
RwLockReadGuard, or RwLockWriteGuard. If we find one then we emit a lint.
If let else mutex
changelog: Adds lint to catch incorrect use of `Mutex::lock` in `if let` expressions with lock calls in any of the blocks.
closes: #5219
Fix issue #2907.
Update the "borrow box" lint to avoid recommending the following
conversion:
```
// Old
pub fn f(&mut Box<T>) {...}
// New
pub fn f(&mut T) {...}
```
Given a mutable reference to a box, functions may want to change
"which" object the Box is pointing at.
This change avoids recommending removing the "Box" parameter
for mutable references.
changelog: Don't trigger [`borrow_box`] lint on `&mut Box` references
Cleanup: `node_id` -> `hir_id`
This removes some more `node_id` terminology from Clippy and replaces one occurrence of `as_local_node_id` with `as_local_hir_id`, which should be doing the same for that particular case.
changelog: none
Update the "borrow box" lint to avoid recommending the following
conversion:
```
// Old
pub fn f(&mut Box<T>) {...}
// New
pub fn f(&mut T) {...}
```
Given a mutable reference to a box, functions may want to change
"which" object the Box is pointing at.
This change avoids recommending removing the "Box" parameter
for mutable references.
add lint futures_not_send
changelog: add lint futures_not_send
fixes#5379
~Remark: one thing that can (should?) still be improved is to directly include the error message from the `Send` check so that the programmer stays in the flow. Currently, getting the actual error message requires a restructuring of the code to make the `Send` constraint explicit.~
It now shows all unmet constraints for allowing the Future to be Send.
Fixes issue #4892.
First contribution here 😊 ! Do not hesitate to correct me.
This PR is related to issue #4892 .
# Summary
```rust
-literal.method_call(args)
```
The main idea is to not trigger `clippy::precedence` when the method call is an odd function.
# Example
```rust
// should trigger lint
let _ = -1.0_f64.abs() //precedence of method call abs() and neg ('-') is ambiguous
// should not trigger lint
let _ = -1.0_f64.sin() // sin is an odd function => -sin(x) = sin(-x)
```
# Theory
Rust allows following literals:
- char
- string
- integers
- floats
- byte
- bool
Only integers/floats implements the relevant `std::ops::Neg`.
Following odd functions are implemented on i[8-128] and/or f[32-64]:
- `asin`
- `asinh`
- `atan`
- `atanh`
- `cbrt`
- `fract`
- `round`
- `signum`
- `sin`
- `sinh`
- `tan`
- `tanh `
- `to_degrees`
- `to_radians`
# Implementation
As suggested by `flip1995` in [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/4892#issuecomment-568249683), this PR add a whitelist of odd functions and compare method call to the the whitelist before triggering lint.
changelog: Don't trigger [`clippy::precedence`] on odd functions.
question_mark: don't add `as_ref()` for a call expression
If a call returns a `!Copy` value, it does so regardless of whether `as_ref()` is added. For example, `foo.into_option().as_ref()?` can be simplified to `foo.into_option()?`.
---
changelog: Improved `question_mark` lint suggestion so that it doesn't add redundant `as_ref()`
Do not lint in macros for match lints
Don't lint in macros for match lints, more precisely in `check_pat` and `check_local` where it was not the case.
changelog: none
fixes: #5362
large_enum_variant: Report sizes of variants
This reports the sizes of the largest and second-largest variants.
Closes#5459
changelog: `large_enum_variant`: Report the sizes of the largest and second-largest variants.
Disallow bit-shifting in integer_arithmetic
Make the `integer_arithmetic` lint detect all the operations that are defined as being capable of overflow in the [Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions/operator-expr.html#overflow), by also linting for bit-shifting operations (`<<`, `>>`).
changelog: Disallow bit-shifting in `integer_arithmetic`
Add lint on large non scalar const
This PR adds the new lint `non_scalar_const` that aims to warn against `const` declaration of large arrays. For performance, because of inlining, large arrays should be preferably declared as `static`.
Note: i made this one to warn on all const arrays, whether they are in a body function or not. I don't know if this is really necessary, i could just reduce this lint to variables out of function scope.
Fixes: #400
changelog: add new lint for large non-scalar types declared as const
Add lint for explicit deref and deref_mut method calls
This PR adds the lint `explicit_deref_method` that suggests replacing `deref()` and `deref_mut()` with `&*a` and `&mut *a`.
It doesn't lint inside macros.
This PR is the continuation of #3258.
changelog: Add lint `explicit_deref_method`.
Fixes: #1566
Add lint for float in array comparison
Fixes#4277
changelog:
- Added new handler for expression of index kind (e.g. `arr[i]`). It returns a constant when both array and index are constant, or when the array is constant and all values are equal.
- Trigger float_cmp and float_cmp_const lint when comparing arrays. Allow for comparison when one of the arrays contains only zeros or infinities.
- Added appropriate tests for such cases.
Refactor: Use rustc's `match_def_path`
This replaces our match_def_path implementation with the rustc one.
Note that we can't just use it in all call sites because of the
`&[&str]` / `&[Symbol]` difference in Clippy/rustc.
changelog: none
This replaces our match_def_path implementation with the rustc one.
Note that we can't just use it in all call sites because of the
`&[&str]` / `&[Symbol]` difference in Clippy/rustc.
Make use of more diagnostic items
This makes use of some (not all) already existing diagnostic items. Specifically:
* 79982a2: `core::mem::uninitialized`, `core::mem::zeroed`, `alloc::sync::Arc`, `alloc::sync::Rc`
* 83874d0: `Option` and `Result`
cc #5393
changelog: none
Fixes#5405: redundant clone false positive with arrays
Check whether slice elements implement Copy before suggesting to drop
the clone method
changelog: add a check for slice indexing on redundant_clone lint
Update documentation for new_ret_no_self
changelog: Update documentation for lint new_ret_no_self to reflect that the return type must only contain `Self`, not be `Self`
The lint was changed to be more lenient than the documentation implies in PR #3338 (Related issue #3313)
Change the existing hex bit mask (`0x1111`) to a binary one (`0b1111`).
The former does not seem to have anything to do with trailing zeros and is
probably a typo.
This change adds a check to the `inconsistent_digit_grouping` to add a check for
NumericLiterals that follow the UUID format of 8-4-4-4-12.
If the NumericLiteral matches the UUID format, no further inconsistent grouping checks
will be performed.
Closes#5431
Check for clone-on-copy in argument positions
Earlier if arguments to method calls matched the above pattern they were
not reported. This patch ensures such arguments are checked as well.
Fixes#5436
changelog: apply clone_on_copy lint to func args as well
Earlier if arguments to method calls matched the above pattern they were
not reported. This patch ensures such arguments are checked as well.
Fixes#5436
Downgrade implicit_hasher to pedantic
From the [documentation](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#implicit_hasher), this lint is intended to suggest:
```diff
- pub fn foo(map: &mut HashMap<i32, i32>) { }
+ pub fn foo<S: BuildHasher>(map: &mut HashMap<i32, i32, S>) { }
```
I think this is pedantic. I get that this lint can benefit core libraries like serde, but that's exactly the use case for pedantic lints; a library like serde will [enable clippy_pedantic](fd6741f4b0/src/lib.rs (L304)) and take the time to go through everything possible. Similar for libraries doing a libz blitz style checkup before committing to a 1.0 release; it would make sense to run through all the available pedantic lints then.
But otherwise, for most codebases and certainly for industrial codebases, the above suggested change just makes the codebase more obtuse for questionable benefit.
changelog: Remove implicit_hasher from default set of enabled lints
Check fn header along with decl when suggesting to implement trait
When checking for functions that are potential candidates for trait
implementations check the function header to make sure modifiers like
asyncness, constness and safety match before triggering the lint.
Fixes#5413, #4290
changelog: check fn header along with decl for should_implement_trait
When checking for functions that are potential candidates for trait
implementations check the function header to make sure modifiers like
asyncness, constness and safety match before triggering the lint.
Fixes#5413, #4290
