Check whether out of bound when access a known length array with a constant index
fixes [Issue#11762](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11762)
Issue#11762 points that `Array references with known length are not flagged when indexed out of bounds`.
To fix this problem, it is needed to add check for `Expr::Index`. We expand this issue include reference and direct accessing a array.
When we access a array with a constant index `off`, and already know the length `size`, if `off >= size`, these code will throw an error, instead rustc's lint checking them or runtime panic happening.
changelog: [`out_of_bound_indexing`]: Add check for illegal accessing known length array with a constant index
Add support for `for await` loops
This adds support for `for await` loops. This includes parsing, desugaring in AST->HIR lowering, and adding some support functions to the library.
Given a loop like:
```rust
for await i in iter {
...
}
```
this is desugared to something like:
```rust
let mut iter = iter.into_async_iter();
while let Some(i) = loop {
match core::pin::Pin::new(&mut iter).poll_next(cx) {
Poll::Ready(i) => break i,
Poll::Pending => yield,
}
} {
...
}
```
This PR also adds a basic `IntoAsyncIterator` trait. This is partly for symmetry with the way `Iterator` and `IntoIterator` work. The other reason is that for async iterators it's helpful to have a place apart from the data structure being iterated over to store state. `IntoAsyncIterator` gives us a good place to do this.
I've gated this feature behind `async_for_loop` and opened #118898 as the feature tracking issue.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result`
and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as
that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
New Lint: `result_filter_map` / Mirror of `option_filter_map`
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map`.
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
I had to move around some code because the function def was too long 🙃.
I have also added some pattern checks on `option_filter_map`
don't visit nested bodies in `is_const_evaluatable`
Fixes#11939
This ICE happened in `if_let_some_else_none`, but the root problem is in one of the utils that it uses.
It is (was) possible for `is_const_evalutable` to visit nested bodies which would lead to it trying to get the type of one of the expressions with the wrong typeck table, which won't have the type stored.
Notably, for the expression `Bytes::from_static(&[0; 256 * 1024]);` in the linked issue, the array length is an anonymous const in which type checking happens on its own, so we can't use the typeck table of the enclosing function in there.
Visiting nested bodies is also not needed for checking whether an expression can be const, so I think it's safe to ignore just ignore them altogether.
changelog: Fix ICE when checking for constness in nested bodies
Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Currently, rustc `unconditional_recursion` doesn't detect cases like:
```rust
enum Foo {
A,
B,
}
impl PartialEq for Foo {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self == other
}
}
```
This is because the lint is currently implemented only for one level, and in the above code, `self == other` will then call `impl PartialEq for &T`, escaping from the detection. The fix for it seems to be a bit tricky (I started investigating potential solution to add one extra level of recursion [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...GuillaumeGomez:rust:trait-impl-recursion?expand=1) but completely broken at the moment).
I expect that this situation will remain for a while. In the meantime, I think it's acceptable to check it directly into clippy for the time being as a lot of easy cases like this one can be easily checked (next I plan to extend it to cover other traits like `ToString`).
changelog: Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
[`redundant_pattern_matching`]: lint `if let true`, `while let true`, `matches!(.., true)`
Closes#11917
This could also lint e.g. `if let (true, true, false) = (a, b, c)` and suggest `if a && b && c`, but that's a change in semantics (going from eager to lazy, so I just left it out for now. Could be a future improvement.
changelog: [`redundant_pattern_matching`]: lint `if let true`, `while let true`, `matches!(.., true)`
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map` to catch
```
.into_iter().filter(Result::is_ok).map(Result::unwrap)
```
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
Co-authored-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
Don't pass lint back out of lint decorator
Change the decorator function in the signature of the `emit_lint`/`span_lint`/etc family of methods from `impl for<'a, 'b> FnOnce(&'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>) -> &'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>` to `impl for<'a, 'b> FnOnce(&'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>)`. I consider it easier to read this way, especially when there's control flow involved.
r? nnethercote though feel free to reassign
Uplift `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind` to `rustc_type_ir`
Uplifts `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind`
I know I said I was just going to get rid of `TypeAndMut` (https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/124) but I think this is much simpler, lol
r? `@jackh726` or `@lcnr`
Fix binder handling in `unnecessary_to_owned`
fixes#11952
The use of `rebind` instead of `EarlyBinder::bind` isn't technically needed, but it is the semantically correct operation.
changelog: None
[`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses `()` for quoting
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses for quoting, e.g. `func()`.
---
Developers often write function/method names with trailing `()`, but `doc_markdown` lint did not consider that.
Old clippy suggestion was not very good:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (do() or `do_not`()).
```
New behavior recognizes function names such as `do()` even they contain no `_`/`::`; and backticks are suggested outside of the `()`:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (`do()` or `do_not()`).
```
Useless vec false positive
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: fix false positive in macros.
fixes#11861
We delay the emission of `useless_vec` lints to the check_crate_post stage, which allows us to effectively undo lints if we find that a `vec![]` expression is being used multiple times after macro expansion.
new lint to detect infinite loop
closes: #11438
changelog: add new lint to detect infinite loop
~*I'll change the lint name*~. Should I name it `infinite_loop` or `infinite_loops` is fine? Ahhhh, English is hard...
