Uplift the invalid_atomic_ordering lint from clippy to rustc
This is mostly just a rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79654; I've copy/pasted the text from that PR below.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one, but feel free to reassign.
---
This is an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/390.
As mentioned, in general this turns an unconditional runtime panic into a (compile time) lint failure. It has no false positives, and the only false negatives I'm aware of are if `Ordering` isn't specified directly and is comes from an argument/constant/whatever.
As a result of it having no false positives, and the alternative always being strictly wrong, it's on as deny by default. This seems right.
In the [zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Uplift.20the.20.60invalid_atomic_ordering.60.20lint.20from.20clippy/near/218483957) `@joshtriplett` suggested that lang team should FCP this before landing it. Perhaps libs team cares too?
---
Some notes on the code for reviewers / others below
## Changes from clippy
The code is changed from [the implementation in clippy](68cf94f6a6/clippy_lints/src/atomic_ordering.rs) in the following ways:
1. Uses `Symbols` and `rustc_diagnostic_item`s instead of string literals.
- It's possible I should have just invoked Symbol::intern for some of these instead? Seems better to use symbol, but it did require adding several.
2. The functions are moved to static methods inside the lint struct, as a way to namespace them.
- There's a lot of other code in that file — which I picked as the location for this lint because `@jyn514` told me that seemed reasonable.
3. Supports unstable AtomicU128/AtomicI128.
- I did this because it was almost easier to support them than not — not supporting them would have (ideally) required finding a way not to give them a `rustc_diagnostic_item`, which would have complicated an already big macro.
- These don't have tests since I wasn't sure if/how I should make tests conditional on whether or not the target has the atomic... This is to a certain extent an issue of 64bit atomics too, but 128-bit atomics are much less common. Regardless, the existing tests should be *more* than thorough enough here.
4. Minor changes like:
- grammar tweaks ("loads cannot have `Release` **and** `AcqRel` ordering" => "loads cannot have `Release` **or** `AcqRel` ordering")
- function renames (`match_ordering_def_path` => `matches_ordering_def_path`),
- avoiding clippy-specific helper methods that don't exist in rustc_lint and didn't seem worth adding for this case (for example `cx.struct_span_lint` vs clippy's `span_lint_and_help` helper).
## Potential issues
(This is just about the code in this PR, not conceptual issues with the lint or anything)
1. I'm not sure if I should have used a diagnostic item for `Ordering` and its variants (I couldn't figure out how really, so if I should do this some pointers would be appreciated).
- It seems possible that failing to do this might possibly mean there are more cases this lint would miss, but I don't really know how `match_def_path` works and if it has any pitfalls like that, so maybe not.
2. I *think* I deprecated the lint in clippy (CC `@flip1995` who asked to be notified about clippy changes in the future in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75671#issuecomment-718731659)) but I'm not sure if I need to do anything else there.
- I'm kind of hoping CI will catch if I missed anything, since `x.py test src/tools/clippy` fails with a lot of errors with and without my changes (and is probably a nonsense command regardless). Running `cargo test` from src/tools/clippy also fails with unrelated errors that seem like refactorings that didnt update clippy? So, honestly no clue.
3. I wasn't sure if the description/example I gave good. Hopefully it is. The example is less thorough than the one from clippy here: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#invalid_atomic_ordering. Let me know if/how I should change it if it needs changing.
4. It pulls in the `if_chain` crate. This crate was already used in clippy, and seems like it's used elsewhere in rustc, but I'm willing to rewrite it to not use this if needed (I'd prefer not to, all things being equal).
- Deprecate clippy::invalid_atomic_ordering
- Use rustc_diagnostic_item for the orderings in the invalid_atomic_ordering lint
- Reduce code duplication
- Give up on making enum variants diagnostic items and just look for
`Ordering` instead
I ran into tons of trouble with this because apparently the change to
store HIR attrs in a side table also gave the DefIds of the
constructor instead of the variant itself. So I had to change
`matches_ordering` to also check the grandparent of the defid as well.
- Rename `atomic_ordering_x` symbols to just the name of the variant
- Fix typos in checks - there were a few places that said "may not be
Release" in the diagnostic but actually checked for SeqCst in the lint.
- Make constant items const
- Use fewer diagnostic items
- Only look at arguments after making sure the method matches
This prevents an ICE when there aren't enough arguments.
- Ignore trait methods
- Only check Ctors instead of going through `qpath_res`
The functions take values, so this couldn't ever be anything else.
- Add if_chain to allowed dependencies
- Fix grammar
- Remove unnecessary allow
* Captures by sub closures are now considered
* Copy types are correctly borrowed by reference when their value is used
* Fields are no longer automatically borrowed by value
* Bindings in `match` and `let` patterns are now checked to determine how a local is captured
Link to edition guide instead of issues for 2021 lints.
This changes the 2021 lints to not link to github issues, but to the edition guide instead.
Fixes #86996
Add `unwrap_or_else_default` lint
---
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: Add a new [`unwrap_or_else_default`] style lint. This will catch `unwrap_or_else(Default::default)` on Result and Option and suggest `unwrap_or_default()` instead.
`never_loop`: suggest using an `if let` instead of a `for` loop
changelog: suggest using an `if let` statement instead of a `for` loop that [`never_loop`]s
Fixes#7537, r? `@camsteffen.`
Make `SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` warn by default
This PR makes the `SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint warn by default.
To avoid showing a large number of un-actionable warnings to users, we only enable the lint for macros defined in the same crate. This ensures that users will be able to fix the warning by simply removing a semicolon.
In the future, I'd like to enable this lint unconditionally, and eventually make it into a hard error in a future edition. This PR is a step towards that goal.
Prefer a code snipped over formatting the self type (`new_without_default`)
Fixes: rust-lang/rust-clippy#7220
changelog: [`new_without_default`]: The `Default` impl block type doesn't use the full type path qualification
Have a nice day to everyone reading this 🙃
similar_names: No longer suggest inserting or appending an underscore
changelog: [`similar_names`] lint no longer suggests to insert or add an underscore to "fix" too similar names
New lint: [`self_named_constructor`]
Adds the `self_named_constructor` lint for detecting when an implemented method has the same name as the type it is implemented for.
changelog: [`self_named_constructor`]
closes: #7142
FP fix and documentation for `branches_sharing_code` lint
Closesrust-lang/rust-clippy#7369
Related rust-lang/rust-clippy#7452 I'm still thinking about the best way to fix this. I could simply add another visitor to ensure that the moved expressions don't modify values being used in the condition, but I'm not totally happy with this due to the complexity. I therefore only documented it for now
changelog: [`branches_sharing_code`] fixed false positive where block expressions would sometimes be ignored.
Don't suggest doc(hidden) or unstable variants in wildcard lint
Clippy's wildcard lint would suggest doc(hidden) and unstable variants for non_exhaustive enums, even though those aren't part of the public interface (yet) and should only be matched on using a `_`, just like potential future additions to the enum. There was already some logic to exclude a *single* doc(hidden) variant. This extends that to all hidden variants, and also hides `#[unstable]` variants.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/85746#issuecomment-868886893
This PR includes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/7406 as the first commit.
Here's the diff that this PR adds on top of that PR: https://github.com/m-ou-se/rust-clippy/compare/std-errorkind...m-ou-se:doc-hidden-variants
---
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: No longer suggest unstable and doc(hidden) variants in wildcard lint. wildcard_enum_match_arm, match_wildcard_for_single_variants
This fixes a bug where match_wildcard_for_single_variants produced a
bad suggestion where besides the missing variant, one or more hidden
variants were left.
This also adds tests to the ui-tests match_wildcard_for_single_variants
and wildcard_enum_match_arm to make sure that the correct suggestion is
produced.
New lint: `disallowed_script_idents`
This PR implements a new lint to restrict locales that can be used in the code,
as proposed in #7376.
Current concerns / unresolved questions:
- ~~Mixed usage of `script` (as a Unicode term) and `locale` (as something that is easier to understand for the broad audience). I'm not sure whether these terms are fully interchangeable and whether in the current form it is more confusing than helpful.~~ `script` is now used everywhere.
- ~~Having to mostly copy-paste `AllowedScript`. Probably it's not a big problem, as the list of scripts is standardized and is unlikely to change, and even if we'd stick to the `unicode_script::Script`, we'll still have to implement custom deserialization, and I don't think that it will be shorter in terms of the amount of LoC.~~ `unicode::Script` is used together with a filtering deserialize function.
- Should we stick to the list of "recommended scripts" from [UAX #31](http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Table_Recommended_Scripts) in the configuration?
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: ``[`disallowed_script_idents`]``
r? `@Manishearth`
Improve lint message for match-same-arms lint
fixes#7331
Follow-up to #7377
This PR improves the lint message for `match-same-arms` lint and adds `todo!(..)` example to the lint docs.
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: None
