Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
Fix missing parenthesis in suboptimal floating point help
This fixes#11559 by adding a branch in the `Neg` implementation for `Sugg` that adds parentheses to keep precedence in order, then using that in the suggestion. I also removed some needless `.to_string()`s while I was at it.
---
changelog: none
[`iter_without_into_iter`]: fix papercuts in suggestion and restrict linting to exported types
See #11692 for more context.
tldr: the lint `iter_without_into_iter` has suggestions that don't compile, which imo isn't that problematic because it does have the appropriate `Applicability` that tells external tools that it shouldn't be auto-applied.
However there were some obvious "errors" in the suggestion that really should've been included in my initial PR adding the lint, which is fixed by this PR:
- `IntoIterator::into_iter` needs a `self` argument.
- `IntoIterator::Iter` associated type doesn't exist. This should've just been `Item`.
This still doesn't make it machine applicable, and the remaining things are imho quite non-trivial to implement, as I've explained in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11692#issuecomment-1773886111.
I personally think it's fine to leave it there and let the user change the remaining errors when copy-pasting the suggestion (e.g. errors caused by lifetimes that were permitted in fn return-position but are not in associated types).
This is how many of our other lint suggestions already work.
Also, we now restrict linting to only exported types. This required moving basically all of the tests around since they were previously in the `main` function. Same for `into_iter_without_iter`. The git diff is a bit useless here...
changelog: [`iter_without_into_iter`]: fix papercuts in suggestion and restrict linting to exported types
(cc `@lopopolo,` figured I should mention you since you created the issue)
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/macro.todo.html
describes that `todo!()` is intended for explicitly unfinished
code. Explain this, and mention `unimplemented!()` as an alternative.
Whilst we're here, improve the punctuation on the other lints.
Add `waker_clone_and_wake` lint to check needless `Waker` clones
Check for patterns of `waker.clone().wake()` and replace them with `waker.wake_by_ref()`.
An alternative name could be `waker_clone_then_wake`
changelog: [ `waker_clone_wake`]: new lint
Remove the `internal_warn` lint category
`LINT_AUTHOR` and `DUMP_HIR` can be removed since their corresponding lint passes are only used for side effects
The metadata collector lint can be made an `internal` lint since `clippy::internal` is set to deny when running the collector
Also renames some internal lints/passes
changelog: none
Store #[stable] attribute's `since` value in structured form
Followup to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116773#pullrequestreview-1680913901.
Prior to this PR, if you wrote an improper `since` version in a `stable` attribute, such as `#[stable(feature = "foo", since = "wat.0")]`, rustc would emit a diagnostic saying **_'since' must be a Rust version number, such as "1.31.0"_** and then throw out the whole `stable` attribute as if it weren't there. This strategy had 2 problems, both fixed in this PR:
1. If there was also a `#[deprecated]` attribute on the same item, rustc would want to enforce that the stabilization version is older than the deprecation version. This involved reparsing the `stable` attribute's `since` version, with a diagnostic **_invalid stability version found_** if it failed to parse. Of course this diagnostic was unreachable because an invalid `since` version would have already caused the `stable` attribute to be thrown out. This PR deletes that unreachable diagnostic.
2. By throwing out the `stable` attribute when `since` is invalid, you'd end up with a second diagnostic saying **_function has missing stability attribute_** even though your function is not missing a stability attribute. This PR preserves the `stable` attribute even when `since` cannot be parsed, avoiding the misleading second diagnostic.
Followups I plan to try next:
- Do the same for the `since` value of `#[deprecated]`.
- See whether it makes sense to also preserve `stable` and/or `unstable` attributes when they contain an invalid `feature`. What redundant/misleading diagnostics can this eliminate? What problems arise from not having a usable feature name for some API, in the situation that we're already failing compilation, so not concerned about anything that happens in downstream code?
Stop telling people to submit bugs for internal feature ICEs
This keeps track of usage of internal features, and changes the message to instead tell them that using internal features is not supported.
I thought about several ways to do this but now used the explicit threading of an `Arc<AtomicBool>` through `Session`. This is not exactly incremental-safe, but this is fine, as this is set during macro expansion, which is pre-incremental, and also only affects the output of ICEs, at which point incremental correctness doesn't matter much anyways.
See [MCP 620.](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/596)
Rename AsyncCoroutineKind to CoroutineSource
pulled out of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116447
Also refactors the printing infra of `CoroutineSource` to be ready for easily extending it with a `Gen` variant for `gen` blocks
This keeps track of usage of internal features, and changes the message
to instead tell them that using internal features is not supported.
See MCP 620.
Validate `feature` and `since` values inside `#[stable(…)]`
Previously the string passed to `#[unstable(feature = "...")]` would be validated as an identifier, but not `#[stable(feature = "...")]`. In the standard library there were `stable` attributes containing the empty string, and kebab-case string, neither of which should be allowed.
Pre-existing validation of `unstable`:
```rust
// src/lib.rs
#![allow(internal_features)]
#![feature(staged_api)]
#![unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
#[unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
pub struct Struct;
```
```console
error[E0546]: 'feature' is not an identifier
--> src/lib.rs:5:1
|
5 | #![unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
For an `unstable` attribute, the need for an identifier is obvious because the downstream code needs to write a `#![feature(...)]` attribute containing that identifier. `#![feature(kebab-case)]` is not valid syntax and `#![feature(kebab_case)]` would not work if that is not the name of the feature.
Having a valid identifier even in `stable` is less essential but still useful because it allows for informative diagnostic about the stabilization of a feature. Compare:
```rust
// src/lib.rs
#![allow(internal_features)]
#![feature(staged_api)]
#![stable(feature = "kebab-case", since = "1.0.0")]
#[stable(feature = "kebab-case", since = "1.0.0")]
pub struct Struct;
```
```rust
// src/main.rs
#![feature(kebab_case)]
use repro::Struct;
fn main() {}
```
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `kebab_case`
--> src/main.rs:3:12
|
3 | #![feature(kebab_case)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
vs the situation if we correctly use `feature = "snake_case"` and `#![feature(snake_case)]`, as enforced by this PR:
```console
warning: the feature `snake_case` has been stable since 1.0.0 and no longer requires an attribute to enable
--> src/main.rs:3:12
|
3 | #![feature(snake_case)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(stable_features)]` on by default
```
Create `clippy_config` crate, hide internal representation from docs
r? `@flip1995`
The first commit moves a decent chunk of code out of `clippy_lints`/`clippy_utils` into a new crate `clippy_config`
The second commit changes how `--explain`, the book and the site render configuration values. The internal type is now hidden and the displayed defaults are now valid TOML values instead of `Debug` output
changelog: none
report `unused_import` for empty reexports even it is pub
Fixes#116032
An easy fix. r? `@petrochenkov`
(Discovered this issue while reviewing #115993.)
Set doc-tests to `no_run`
This excludes `should_panic` tests, those are still run to ensure they panic. Most of our other doc snippets don't gain much from being run though so this frees up a nice bit of CI time
It also fixes the occasional issue such as `foo.txt`s being created f942470ca7/clippy_lints/src/permissions_set_readonly_false.rs (L19)
changelog: none
suggest passing function instead of calling it in closure for [`option_if_let_else`]
fixes: #11429
changelog: suggest passing function instead of calling it in closure for [`option_if_let_else`]
Avoid a `track_errors` by bubbling up most errors from `check_well_formed`
I believe `track_errors` is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new `ErrorGuaranteed` to invoke `check_well_formed` for individual items before doing all the `typeck` logic on them.
This works towards resolving https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do `rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate`)
cc `@SparrowLii` `@Zoxc` for the new `try_par_for_each_in` function
Skip if_not_else lint for '!= 0'-style checks
Currently, clippy makes unhelpful suggestions such as this:
```
warning: unnecessary `!=` operation
--> src/vm.rs:598:36
|
598 | *destination = if source & 0x8000 != 0 { 0xFFFF } else { 0 };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= help: change to `==` and swap the blocks of the `if`/`else`
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#if_not_else
= note: `-W clippy::if-not-else` implied by `-W clippy::pedantic`
```
Bit tests often take on the form `if foo & 0x1234 != 0 { … } else { … }`, and the `!= 0` part reads as "has any bits set". Therefore, this code already has the "correct" order, and shouldn't be changed.
This PR disables the lint for these cases, and in fact all cases where the condition is "foo is non-zero".
I did my homework:
- \[X] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming] → Not applicable, this PR fixes an existing lint
- \[X] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file) → Yes, `tests/ui/if_not_else_bittest.rs`
- \[X] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[X] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[X] Added lint documentation → Not applicable, this PR fixes an existing lint
- \[X] Run `cargo dev fmt`
changelog: Fix [`if_not_else`] false positive when something like `bitflags != 0` is used
[`map_identity`]: recognize tuple identity function
Fixes#7189
This lint now recognizes `.map(|(a, b)| (a, b))` as a useless `map` call.
changelog: [`map_identity`]: recognize tuple identity function
