This test doesn't reproduce the ICE since it only happens, when the macro is defined in another file.
Currently we can't add tests with multiple files AFAIK
Also using the auxiliary folder didn't help
Add a lint to warn on `T: Drop` bounds
**What it does:** Checks for generics with `std::ops::Drop` as bounds.
**Why is this bad?** `Drop` bounds do not really accomplish anything.
A type may have compiler-generated drop glue without implementing the
`Drop` trait itself. The `Drop` trait also only has one method,
`Drop::drop`, and that function is by fiat not callable in user code.
So there is really no use case for using `Drop` in trait bounds.
**Known problems:** None.
**Example:**
```rust
fn foo<T: Drop>() {}
```
Fixes#3773
Update why transmute_int_to_float is bad
As suggested in #3550, this PR changes the reason why using `transmute` from an integer to a float is not recommended. Effectively, `from_bits` uses `transmute` underneath, but the former is preferred.
**What it does:** Checks for generics with `std::ops::Drop` as bounds.
**Why is this bad?** `Drop` bounds do not really accomplish anything.
A type may have compiler-generated drop glue without implementing the
`Drop` trait itself. The `Drop` trait also only has one method,
`Drop::drop`, and that function is by fiat not callable in user code.
So there is really no use case for using `Drop` in trait bounds.
**Known problems:** None.
**Example:**
```rust
fn foo<T: Drop>() {}
```
Fix ICE #3717 in lint implicit_hasher
Fixes#3717
This fixes the ICE. We lose some information in a very specific case though. But less information if better than an ICE. For an example see the test file.
Does anyone know, if there's another way to get the `ty::Ty` of a `hir::Expr`?
Fix ICE in needless_pass_by_value lint
If I understand it correctly, we were first creating a type with a
`RegionKind::ReErased` region and then deleted it again in
`util::implements_trait` with:
cx.tcx.erase_regions(&ty);
causing the type query to fail.
It looks like using `ReEmpty` works around that deletion.
Fixes#3144
Macro check for assertion_on_constants lint
The `assertion_on_constants` lint currently has following output for this code [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=6f2c9df6fc50baf847212d3b5136ee97):
```rust
macro_rules! assert_const {
($len:expr) => {
assert!($len > 0);
}
}
fn main() {
assert_const!(3);
assert_const!(-1);
}
```
```
warning: assert!(const: true) will be optimized out by the compiler
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | assert!($len > 0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
8 | assert_const!(3);
| ---------------- in this macro invocation
|
= note: #[warn(clippy::assertions_on_constants)] on by default
= help: remove it
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#assertions_on_constants
warning: assert!(const: false) should probably be replaced
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | assert!($len > 0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
9 | assert_const!(-1);
| ----------------- in this macro invocation
|
= help: use panic!() or unreachable!()
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#assertions_on_constants
```
This is contradictory. This lint should not trigger if the `assert!` is in a macro itself.
