Improve invalid let expression handling
- Move all of the checks for valid let expression positions to parsing.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location.
- Suppress some later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
- Fix a (drop) scope issue that was also responsible for #104172.
Fixes#104172Fixes#104868
new lint: `iter_out_of_bounds`
Closes#11345
The original idea in the linked issue seemed to be just about arrays afaict, but I extended this to catch some other iterator sources such as `iter::once` or `iter::empty`.
I'm not entirely sure if this name makes a lot of sense now that it's not just about arrays anymore (specifically, not sure if you can call `.take(1)` on an `iter::Empty` to be "out of bounds"?).
changelog: [`iter_out_of_bounds`]: new lint
Update Clippy
r? `@oli-obk` Assigning you, because something broke with ui_test:
```
tests/ui/crashes/ice-7272.rs FAILED:
command: "<unknown>"
A bug in `ui_test` occurred: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: Os { code: 2, kind: NotFound, message: "No such file or directory" }
full stderr:
```
(and that 103 times)
Thought I would ping you, before starting to investigate. Maybe you know what's going on.
[`unnecessary_unwrap`]: lint on `.as_ref().unwrap()`
Closes#11371
This turned out to be a little more code than I originally thought, because the lint also makes sure to not lint if the user tries to mutate the option:
```rs
if option.is_some() {
option = None;
option.unwrap(); // don't lint here
}
```
... which means that even if we taught this lint to recognize `.as_mut()`, it would *still* not lint because that would count as a mutation. So we need to allow `.as_mut()` calls but reject other kinds of mutations.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like this is possible with `is_potentially_mutated` (seeing what kind of mutation happened).
This replaces it with a custom little visitor that does basically what it did before, but also allows `.as_mut()`.
changelog: [`unnecessary_unwrap`]: lint on `.as_ref().unwrap()`
[`if_then_some_else_none`]: look into local initializers for early returns
Fixes#11394
As the PR title says, problem was that it only looked for early returns in semi statements. Local variables don't count as such, so it didn't count `let _v = x?;` (or even just `let _ = return;`) as a possible early return and didn't realize that it can't lint then.
Imo the `stmts_contains_early_return` function that was used before is redundant. `contains_return` could already do that if we just made the parameter a bit more generic, just like `for_each_expr`, which can already accept `&[Stmt]`
changelog: [`if_then_some_else_none`]: look into local initializers for early returns
Point at return type when it influences non-first `match` arm
When encountering code like
```rust
fn foo() -> i32 {
match 0 {
1 => return 0,
2 => "",
_ => 1,
}
}
```
Point at the return type and not at the prior arm, as that arm has type `!` which isn't influencing the arm corresponding to arm `2`.
Fix#78124.
Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
Perform OpaqueCast field projection on HIR, too.
fixes#105819
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99806 for when and why we added OpaqueCast to MIR.
[`slow_vector_initialization`]: catch `Vec::new()` followed by `.resize(len, 0)`
Closes#10938
changelog: [`slow_vector_initialization`]: catch `Vec::new()` followed by `.resize(len, 0)`
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
check that the types are equal in `SpanlessEq::eq_expr`
Fixes#11213
changelog: [`if_same_then_else`]: don't lint for integer literals of different types
Refactor some of `dereference.rs` to util functions
I've seen a few lints that need to be able to tell if changing the type of an expression would be a vaild suggestion. This extracts part of how that's done from `explicit_auto_deref`.
changelog: None
Allow `Self::cmp(self, other)` as a correct impl
Fixes#11178
Also no longer checks if the method name is *just* cmp, but the path. That was an oversight on my part ^^
r? `@xFrednet`
(and `@blyxyas` too!)
changelog: [`incorrect_partial_ord_impl_on_ord_type`]: Now allows non-method calls to `cmp` like `Self::cmp(self, other)`
Clippy had a false positive for with `ifs_same_cond` when two
if-let expressions have an `option_env!` macro. The fix is similar to the
`env!` macro fix.
The following example had a clippy error:
```rust
if let Some(env1) = option_env!("ENV1") {
// ...
} else if let Some(env2) = option_env!("ENV2") {
// ...
}
```
See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=01b85c61b56ddd900117fb247af04824
changelog: Fix [`ifs_same_cond`] false positive when using `option_env!` in if-let expressions.
[`manual_filter_map`]: lint on `matches` and pattern matching
Fixes#8010
Previously this lint only worked specifically for a very limited set of methods on the filter call (`.filter(|opt| opt.is_some())` and `.filter(|res| res.is_ok())`). This PR extends it to also recognize `matches!` in the `filter` and pattern matching with `if let` or `match` in the `map`.
Example:
```rs
enum Enum {
A(i32),
B,
}
let _ = [Enum::A(123), Enum::B].into_iter()
.filter(|x| matches!(x, Enum::A(_)))
.map(|x| if let Enum::A(s) = x { s } else { unreachable!() });
```
Now suggests:
```diff
- .filter(|x| matches!(x, Enum::A(_))).map(if let Enum::A(s) = x { s } else { unreachable!() })
+ .filter_map(|x| match x { Enum::A(s) => Some(s), _ => None })
```
Adding this required a somewhat large change in code because it originally seemed to be specifically written with only method calls in the filter in mind, and `matches!` has different behavior in the map, so this new setup should make it possible to support more "generic" cases that need different handling for the filter and map calls.
changelog: [`manual_filter_map`]: lint on `matches` and pattern matching (and some internal refactoring)
It makes it sound like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related
casts, when in reality their just used to share a some enum variants. Make it clear there these
are only coercion to make it clear why only some pointer related "casts" are in the enum.
Move `TyCtxt::mk_x` to `Ty::new_x` where applicable
Part of rust-lang/compiler-team#616
turns out there's a lot of places we construct `Ty` this is a ridiculously huge PR :S
r? `@oli-obk`
Specialize `try_destructure_mir_constant` for its sole user (pretty printing)
We can't remove the query, as we need to invoke it from rustc_middle, but can only implement it in mir interpretation/const eval.
r? `@RalfJung` for a first round.
While we could move all the logic into pretty printing, that would end up duplicating a bit of code with const eval, which doesn't seem great either.
Don't lint manual_let_else in cases where ? would work
Don't lint `manual_let_else` where the question mark operator `?` would be sufficient, that is, mostly in cases like:
```Rust
let v = if let Some(v) = ex { v } else { return None };
```
Also, this PR emits the `question_mark` lint for `let...else` patterns that could be written with `?` (also, only `return None` like cases).
```
changelog: [`manual_let_else`]: don't lint in cases where question_mark already lints
changelog: [`question_mark`]: lint for `let Some(...) = ex else { return None };`
```
Fixes #8755
