Avoid emitting `assigning_clones` when cloned data borrows from the place to clone into
Fixes#12444Fixes#12460Fixes#12749Fixes#12757Fixes#12929
I think the documentation for the function should describe what- and how this is fixing the issues well.
It avoids emitting a warning when the data being cloned borrows from the place to clone into, which is information that we can get from `PossibleBorrowerMap`. Unfortunately, it is a tiny bit tedious to match on the MIR like that and I'm not sure if this is possibly relying a bit too much on the exact MIR lowering for assignments.
Things left to do:
- [x] Handle place projections (or verify that they work as expected)
- [x] Handle non-`Drop` types
changelog: [`assigning_clones`]: avoid warning when the suggestion would lead to a borrow-check error
Fix doc nits
Clippy is wonderful, and reading its lints is a great way to learn about Rust. While doing this, I noticed a few little copyedits, such as adding trailing periods to sentences, or tweaking wording very slightly to improve its readability. I hope you will accept these suggestions as an act of love for the project, with my thanks for all the maintainers' hard work.
changelog: Docs [ mut_range_bound ]: fix doc nits
changelog: Docs [ needless_for_each ]: fix doc nits
changelog: Docs [ arc_with_non_send_sync ]: fix doc nits
changelog: Docs [ allow_attributes ]: fix doc nits
changelog: Docs [ allow_attributes_without_reason ]: fix doc nits
Let `qualify_min_const_fn` deal with drop terminators
Fixes#12677
The `method_accepts_droppable` check that was there seemed overly conservative.
> Returns true if any of the method parameters is a type that implements `Drop`.
> The method can't be made const then, because `drop` can't be const-evaluated.
Accepting parameters that implement `Drop` should still be fine as long as the parameter isn't actually dropped, as is the case in the linked issue where the droppable is moved into the return place. This more accurate analysis ("is there a `drop` terminator") is already done by `qualify_min_const_fn` [here](f5e250180c/clippy_utils/src/qualify_min_const_fn.rs (L298)), so I don't think this additional check is really necessary?
Fixing the other, second case in the linked issue was only slightly more involved, since `Vec::new()` is a function call that has the ability to panic, so there must be a `drop()` terminator for cleanup, however we should be able to freely ignore that. [Const checking ignores cleanup blocks](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs#L382-L388), so we should, too?
r? `@Jarcho`
----
changelog: [`missing_const_for_fn`]: continue linting on fns with parameters implementing `Drop` if they're not actually dropped
Add lint to check manual pattern char comparison
This PR adds a new lint asked in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12490
This lint catches manual char comparison in pattern of string functions and propose to use `char` or array of `char` instead.
As it's my first contribution i'm not feeling very safe about not matching too much or missing some cases.
Thanks in advance for taking time to review and propose feedback !
changelog: new lint [`manual_pattern_char_comparison`]
Don't lint indexing_slicing lints on proc macros
This pr fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12824
Even though the issue mentions the indexing case only, it was easy to apply the fix to the slicing case as well.
changelog: [`out_of_bounds_indexing`, `indexing_slicing`]: Don't lint on procedural macros.
Handle single chars with `to_string()` for `single_char_add_str`
Add support for single chars / literals with `to_string()` call for `push_str()` and `insert_str()`.
changelog: [`single_char_add_str`]: handle single chars with `to_string()` call
Closes#12775
Normalize type aliases when checking significant drops.
fixes#10750
No test as I'm not sure exactly how the type alias caused a stack overflow here. Also removes an unnecessary `HashSet`.
changelog: none
Don't lint blocks in closures for blocks_in_conditions
Seemed like an outlier for the lint which generally caught only the syntactically confusing cases, it lints blocks in closures but excludes closures passed to iterator methods, this changes it to ignore closures in general
changelog: none
Remove `lazy_static` mention
I planned to replace any mention with `LazyLock` but I think `thread_local` is more appropriate here - `const`s that aren't `Sync` wouldn't be able to go in a `lazy_static`/`static LazyLock` either
Also removed a test file that was mostly commented out so wasn't testing anything
changelog: none
Changelog for Clippy 1.79 🎓
Two cat ears from waffle,
A tail and a dress,
That's our Jyn,
The magnificent cat
~ =^.^=
---
### The cat of this release is: *Jyn* submitted by `@jyn514:`
<img height=600 src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/assets/17087237/2f902dea-9ad5-4ad2-b281-1f152b7ad7c7" alt="The cat(s) of this Clippy release" />
Cats for the next release can be nominated in the comments :D
---
changelog: none
Make `for_each_expr` visit closures by default, rename the old version `for_each_expr_without_closures`
A lot of the time `for_each_expr` is picked when closures should be visited so I think it makes sense for this to be the default with the alternative available for when you don't need to visit them.
The first commit renames `for_each_expr` to `for_each_expr_without_closures` and `for_each_expr_with_closures` to `for_each_expr`
The second commit switches a few uses that I caught over to include closures to fix a few bugs
changelog: none
Handle const effects inherited from parent correctly in `type_certainty`
This fixes a (debug) ICE in `type_certainty` that happened in the [k256 crate]. (I'm sure you can also specifically construct an edge test case that will run into type_certainty false positives visible outside of debug builds from this bug)
<details>
<summary>Minimal ICE repro</summary>
```rs
use std::ops::Add;
Add::add(1_i32, 1).add(i32::MIN);
```
</details>
The subtraction here overflowed:
436675b477/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L209)
... when we have something like `Add::add` where `add` fn has 0 generic params but the `host_effect_index` is `Some(2)` (inherited from the parent generics, the const trait `Add`), and we end up executing `0 - 1`.
(Even if the own generics weren't empty and we didn't overflow, this would still be wrong because it would assume that a trait method with 1 generic parameter didn't have any generics).
So, *only* exclude the "host" generic parameter if it's actually bound by the own generics
changelog: none
[k256 crate]: https://github.com/RustCrypto/elliptic-curves/tree/master/k256
Lint `manual_unwrap_or_default` for Result as well
This PR is modifying the `manual_unwrap_or_default` to be applied/linted for `Result`s as well. It is part of the fixes desired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12618
changelog:[`manual_unwrap_or_default`]: Lint for Result types.
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions" on nightly
As discussed in [today's t-compiler meeting](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-06/near/443079505), this reverts PR #124099 to fix P-critical beta regressions #125199.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Opening as draft so that ``@wesleywiser`` and ``@apiraino,`` you can tell me whether you wanted:
1. a `beta-accepted` revert of #124099 on nightly (this PR)? That will need to be backported to beta (even though #126093 may be the last of those)
2. a revert of #124099 on beta?
3. all of the above?
I also opened #126102, another draft PR to revert #124099 on beta, should you choose options 2 or 3.
