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.
This commit fixes a bug introduced in #12706, where the behavior of the
lint has been changed, to avoid suggestions that introduce a move. The
motivation in the commit message is quite poor (if the detection for
significant drops is not sufficient because it's not transitive, the
proper fix would be to make it transitive). However, #12454, the linked
issue, provides a good reason for the change — if the value being
borrowed is bound to a variable, then moving it will only introduce
friction into future refactorings.
Thus #12706 changes the logic so that the lint triggers if the value
being borrowed is Copy, or is the result of a function call, simplifying
the logic to the point where analysing "is this the only use of this
value" isn't necessary.
However, said PR also introduces an undocumented carveout, where
referents that themselves are mutable references are treated as Copy,
to catch some cases that we do want to lint against. However, that is
not sound — it's possible to consume a mutable reference by moving it.
To avoid emitting false suggestions, this PR reintroduces the
referent_used_exactly_once logic and runs that check for referents that
are themselves mutable references.
Thinking about the code shape of &mut x, where x: &mut T, raises the
point that while removing the &mut outright won't work, the extra
indirection is still undesirable, and perhaps instead we should suggest
reborrowing: &mut *x. That, however, is left as possible future work.
Fixes#12856
Fix grammer for the Safety documentation check
The original message ("unsafe function's docs miss `# Safety` section") reads quite awkwardly. I've changed it to "unsafe function's docs are missing a `# Safety` section" to have it read better.
```
changelog: [`missing_headers`]: Tweak the grammar in the lint message
```
[`overly_complex_bool_expr`]: Fix trigger wrongly on never type
fixes#12689
---
changelog: fix [`overly_complex_bool_expr`] triggers wrongly on never type
Dedup nonminimal_bool_methods diags
Relates to #12379
Fix `nonminimal_bool` lint so that it doesn't check the same span multiple times.
`NotSimplificationVisitor` was called for each expression from `NonminimalBoolVisitor` whereas `NotSimplificationVisitor` also recursively checked all expressions.
---
changelog: [`nonminimal_bool`]: Fix duplicate diagnostics
The original message ("unsafe function's docs miss `# Safety` section")
reads quite awkwardly. I've changed it to "unsafe function's docs are missing
a `# Safety` section" to have it read better.
Signed-off-by: Paul R. Tagliamonte <paultag@gmail.com>
