clippy::suboptimal_flops used to not check if the second parameter to f32/f64.mul_add() was float. Since the method is
only defined to take `Self` as paremters, the suggestion was wrong.
Fixes#11831
teach `eager_or_lazy` about panicky arithmetic operations
Fixes#9422Fixes#9814Fixes#11793
It's a bit sad that we have to do this because arithmetic operations seemed to me like the prime example where a closure would not be necessary, but this has "side effects" (changes behavior when going from lazy to eager) as some of these panic on overflow/underflow if compiled with `-Coverflow-checks` (which is the default in debug mode).
Given the number of backlinks in the mentioned issues, this seems to be a FP that is worth fixing, probably.
changelog: [`unnecessary_lazy_evaluations`]: don't lint if closure has panicky arithmetic operations
Extend `maybe_misused_cfg` lint over `cfg(test)`
Fixes#11240.
One thought I had is that we could use the levenshtein distance (of 1) to ensure this is indeed `test` that was targeted. But maybe it's overkill, not sure.
changelog: [`maybe_misused_cfg`]: Extend lint over `cfg(test)`
r? `@blyxyas`
Changelog for Rust 1.74 🎃
Roses are red,
Halloween is over,
Have you considered,
Buying a Mars rover?
---
### The cats of this release:
<img height=500 src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/assets/17087237/095bd32e-b5e3-41db-8f0f-bdef7ca1a6d0" alt="The cats of this Clippy release" />
<sub>The cat for the next release can be nominated in the comments</sub>
---
changelog: none
Change `if_same_then_else` to be a `style` lint
CC #3770
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3770#issuecomment-687565594 (`@flip1995):`
> Oh I thought I replied to this: I definitely see now that having this
> as a correctness lint might be the wrong categorization. What we might
> want to do is to just allow this lint, if there are comments in the
> arm bodies. But a good first step would be to downgrade this lint to
> style or complexity. I would vote for style since merging two arms is
> not always less complex.
changelog: [`if_same_then_else`]: Change to be a `style` lint
disallow calls to `LintContext::struct_span_lint` and `TyCtxt::struct_span_lint_hir`
`LintContext::struct_span_lint` and `TyCtxt::struct_span_lint_hir` don't show the link to the clippy documentation, see: #11805
In #11810, the last few calls to those methods were replaced with `span_lint_*`. It seems like we should just disallow them altogether so that no new code tries to use them.
The existing `disallowed_methods` lint makes this easy.
changelog: none
[`impl_trait_in_params`]: avoid ICE when function with `impl Trait` type has no parameters
Fixes#11803
If I'm reading the old code correctly, it was taking the span of the first parameter (without checking that it exists, which caused the ICE) and uses that to figure out where the generic parameter to insert should go (cc `@blyxyas` you wrote the lint, is that correct?).
This seemed equivalent to just `generics.span`, which doesn't require calculating the spans like that and simplifies it a fair bit
changelog: don't ICE when function has no parameters but generics have an `impl Trait` type
add help text where missing to lints
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11805
Essentially just changes the section of code that applies the lint from using `cx.struct_span_lint` and instead opts for `span_lint_and_then`, which automatically appends the help text.
changelog: add missing help text for `cast_possible_wrap`, `mod_module_files`, and `self_named_module_files` lints
CC #3770
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3770#issuecomment-687565594 (@flip1995):
> Oh I thought I replied to this: I definitely see now that having this
> as a correctness lint might be the wrong categorization. What we might
> want to do is to just allow this lint, if there are comments in the
> arm bodies. But a good first step would be to downgrade this lint to
> style or complexity. I would vote for style since merging two arms is
> not always less complex.
Implement new lint `iter_over_hash_type`
Implements and fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11788
This PR adds a new *restriction* lint `iter_over_hash_type` which prevents `Hash`-types (that is, `HashSet` and `HashMap`) from being used as the iterator in `for` loops.
The justification for this is because in `Hash`-based types, the ordering of items is not guaranteed and may vary between executions of the same program on the same hardware. In addition, it reduces readability due to the unclear iteration order.
The implementation of this lint also ensures the following:
- Calls to `HashMap::keys`, `HashMap::values`, and `HashSet::iter` are also denied when used in `for` loops,
- When this expression is used in procedural macros, it is not linted/denied.
changelog: add new `iter_over_hash_type` lint to prevent unordered iterations through hashed data structures
fix: [manual_memcpy] reduce indexing suggestions when array length is equal to loop range
fixes: #11689
This PR improves `manual_memcpy` suggestions by reducing unnecessary indexing.
For example,
```rust
let src = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4];
let mut dest = [0; 4];
for i in 0..4 {
dest[i] = src[i];
{
```
Clippy suggests `dest[..4].copy_from_slice(&src[..4]);`.
I reduced this suggestion as `dest.copy_from_slice(&src[..4]);`. (Removed needless indexing.)
changelog: [`manual_memcpy`]: Reduce indexing suggestions when array length is equal to loop range
Removing @Centri3 from reviewer rotation
Catherine decided that the best course of action would be to (maybe temporarily) remove her from the reviewer's rotation (but not unassign her from her current reviews). This PR does that. She'll always be welcomed back if she wants to review some more ❤️
> Alejandra González: [youremyfrennow.mp4](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/user_uploads/4715/7nE2W6cb8Q02gcK-vubvmsPM/youremyfrennow.mp4)
>
>Catherine, Fred (`@xFrednet` ) noticed that you aren't as active as in the summer, and proposed that maybe you preferred to be removed from the reviewer rotation. Don't worry, you aren't being taken out of the team, just wanted to know if you maybe preferred to not have those reviews pilling up (they can be pretty stressful to see).
>
>If you decide to step out of the reviewers rotation, you wouldn't be removed from the team, you just wouldn't have that responsability. Everyone takes break and that's fine, so yeah, if you want to not have to review PRs, let me know!
>
>So yeah, from weird teenager transfem to (probably weird) teenager transfem, the choice is in your hand.
>
>Alejandra González: meow meow ^•ﻌ•^
>
>Catherine (Centri3): Yeah that's probably best now, I'll still try with any I'm currently assigned to but I would prefer not to get anymore until then
>Catherine (Centri3): meow meow :3
changelog:none
r? `@Centri3`
move `suspicious_doc_comments` to doc pass
This was my first lint. I've been meaning to move it over to `doc.rs` since that's a better place.
There weren't any changes made to the lint logic itself.
I guess this can be considered part of #11493
changelog: none
Don't check for late-bound vars, check for escaping bound vars
Fixes an assertion that didn't make sense. Many valid and well-formed types *have* late-bound vars (e.g. `for<'a> fn(&'a ())`), they just must not have *escaping* late-bound vars in order to be normalized correctly.
Addresses rust-lang/rust-clippy#11230, cc `@jyn514` and `@matthiaskrgr`
changelog: don't check for late-bound vars, check for escaping bound vars. Addresses rust-lang/rust-clippy#11230
Fixes to `manual_let_else`'s divergence check
A few changes to the divergence check in `manual_let_else` and moves it the implementation to `clippy_utils` since it's generally useful:
* Handle internal `break` and `continue` expressions.
e.g. The first loop is divergent, but the second is not.
```rust
{
loop {
break 'outer;
};
}
{
loop {
break;
};
}
```
* Match rust's definition of divergence which is defined via the type system.
e.g. The following is not considered divergent by rustc as the inner block has a result type of `()`:
```rust
{
'a: {
panic!();
break 'a;
};
}
```
* Handle when adding a single semicolon would make the expression divergent.
e.g. The following would be a divergent if a semicolon were added after the `if` expression:
```rust
{ if panic!() { 0 } else { 1 } }
```
changelog: None
Lint `needless_borrow` and `explicit_auto_deref` on most union field accesses
Changes both lints to follow rustc's rules around auto-deref through `ManuallyDrop` union fields rather than just bailing on union fields.
changelog: [`needless_borrow`] & [`explicit_auto_deref`]: Lint on most union field accesses
