[explicit_counter_loop] suggests `.into_iter()`, despite that triggering [into_iter_on_ref] in some cases
I have modified `fn make_iterator_snippet` in clippy_lints/src/loops/utils.rs ,so this change has some little influence on another lint [manual_flatten] .
fixes#8155
---
changelog: Fix that [`explicit_counter_loop`] suggests `into_iter()` despite that triggering [`into_iter_on_ref`] in some cases
Format `if_chain` invocations in clippy_utils
Not realizing it was [already obsolete](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8360), I built a [tool to format inside `if_chain` invocations](https://crates.io/crates/rustfmt_if_chain).
This PR applies the tool to clippy_utils. (If you apply it to clippy_lints, the changes are extensive.)
Anyway, I'm making it known here in case anyone wants to use it while `if-let` chain support is developed for `rustfmt`. (There could be a few Clippy PRs between now and then, and IMHO, the code looks better with the `if_chain` invocations formatted.)
Cheers.
---
changelog: none
Create `core::fmt::ArgumentV1` with generics instead of fn pointer
Split from (and prerequisite of) #90488, as this seems to have perf implication.
`@rustbot` label: +T-libs
single_match: Don't lint non-exhaustive matches; support tuples
`single_match` lint:
* Don't lint exhaustive enum patterns without a wild.
Rationale: The definition of the enum could be changed, so the user can get non-exhaustive match after applying the suggested lint (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8282#issuecomment-1013566068 for context).
* Lint `match` constructions with tuples (as suggested at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8282#issuecomment-1015621148)
Closes#8282
---
changelog: [`single_match`]: Don't lint exhaustive enum patterns without a wild.
changelog: [`single_match`]: Lint `match` constructions with tuples
Fix underflow in `manual_split_once` lint
Hi, a friend found clippy started crashing on a suspiciously large allocation of `u64::MAX` memory on their code.
The mostly minimized repro is:
```rust
fn _f01(title: &str) -> Option<()> {
let _ = title[1..].splitn(2, '[').next()?;
Some(())
}
```
The underflow happens in this case on line 57 of the patch but I've changed the other substraction to saturating as well since it could potentially cause the same issue.
I'm not sure where to put a regression test, or if it's even worth for such a thing.
Aside, has it been considered before to build clippy with overflow checks enabled?
changelog: fix ICE of underflow in `manual_split_once` lint
