Part of #68490.
Care has been taken to leave the old consts where appropriate, for testing backcompat regressions, module shadowing, etc. The intrinsics docs were accidentally referring to some methods on f64 as std::f64, which I changed due to being contrary with how we normally disambiguate the shadow module from the primitive. In one other place I changed std::u8 to std::ops since it was just testing path handling in macros.
For places which have legitimate uses of the old consts, deprecated attributes have been optimistically inserted. Although currently unnecessary, they exist to emphasize to any future deprecation effort the necessity of these specific symbols and prevent them from being accidentally removed.
For example, `1` is parsed as an integer literal, but it can be turned
into a float with the suffix `f32`. Now the error calls them "numeric
literals" and notes that you can add a float suffix since they can be
either integers or floats.
Qualify `panic!` as `core::panic!` in non-built-in `core` macros
Fixes#78333.
-----
Otherwise code like this
#![no_implicit_prelude]
fn main() {
::std::todo!();
::std::unimplemented!();
}
will fail to compile, which is unfortunate and presumably unintended.
This changes many invocations of `panic!` in a `macro_rules!` definition
to invocations of `$crate::panic!`, which makes the invocations hygienic.
Note that this does not make the built-in macro `assert!` hygienic.
Otherwise code like this
#![no_implicit_prelude]
fn main() {
::std::todo!();
::std::unimplemented!();
}
will fail to compile, which is unfortunate and presumably unintended.
This changes many invocations of `panic!` in a `macro_rules!` definition
to invocations of `$crate::panic!`, which makes the invocations hygienic.
Note that this does not make the built-in macro `assert!` hygienic.
This should make Clippy more resilient and will unblock #78343.
This PR is made against rust-lang/rust to avoid the need for a subtree
sync at @flip1995's suggestion in rust-lang/rust-clippy#6310.
add error_occured field to ConstQualifs,
fix#76064
I wasn't sure what `in_return_place` actually did and not sure why it returns `ConstQualifs` while it's sibling functions return `bool`. So I tried to make as minimal changes to the structure as possible. Please point out whether I have to refactor it or not.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@RalfJung`
Stabilize some Result methods as const
Stabilize the following methods of Result as const:
- `is_ok`
- `is_err`
- `as_ref`
A test is also included, analogous to the test for `const_option`.
These methods are currently const under the unstable feature `const_result` (tracking issue: #67520).
I believe these methods to be eligible for stabilization because of the stabilization of #49146 (Allow if and match in constants) and the trivial implementations, see also: [PR#75463](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75463) and [PR#76135](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76135).
Note: these methods are the only methods currently under the `const_result` feature, thus this PR results in the removal of the feature.
Related: #76225
Update the test `redundant_pattern_matching`: check if `is_ok` and `is_err` are suggested within const contexts.
Also removes the `redundant_pattern_matching_const_result` test, as it is no longer needed.
We no longer lint assignments to const item fields in the
`temporary_assignment` lint, since this is now covered by the
`CONST_ITEM_MUTATION` lint.
Additionally, we `#![allow(const_item_mutation)]` in the
`borrow_interior_mutable_const.rs` test. Clippy UI tests are run with
`-D warnings`, which seems to cause builtin lints to prevent Clippy
lints from running.
Check whether locals are too large instead of whether accesses into them are too large
Essentially this stops const prop from attempting to optimize
```rust
let mut x = [0_u8; 5000];
x[42] = 3;
```
I don't expect this to be a perf improvement without #73656 (which is also where the lack of this PR will be a perf regression).
r? @wesleywiser
The reason we do not trigger these lints anymore is that clippy sets the mir-opt-level to 0, and the recent changes subtly changed how the const propagator works.
Stabilize `transmute` in constants and statics but not const fn
cc #53605 (leaving issue open so we can add `transmute` to `const fn` later)
Previous attempt: #64011
r? @RalfJung
cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval
New lint `match_vec_item`
Added new lint to warn a match on index item which can panic. It's always better to use `get(..)` instead.
Closes#5500
changelog: New lint `match_on_vec_items`
- Show just one error message with multiple suggestions in case of
using multiple times an OS in target family position
- Only suggest #[cfg(unix)] when the OS is in the Unix family
- Test all the operating systems
Don't trigger while_let_on_iterator when the iterator is recreated every iteration
r? @phansch
Fixes#1654
changelog: Fix false positive in [`while_let_on_iterator`]
Downgrade match_bool to pedantic
I don't quite buy the justification in https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/. The justification is:
> It makes the code less readable.
In the Rust codebases I've worked in, I have found people were comfortable using `match bool` (selectively) to make code more readable. For example, initializing struct fields is a place where the indentation of `match` can work better than the indentation of `if`:
```rust
let _ = Struct {
v: {
...
},
w: match doing_w {
true => ...,
false => ...,
},
x: Nested {
c: ...,
b: ...,
a: ...,
},
y: if doing_y {
...
} else { // :(
...
},
z: ...,
};
```
Or sometimes people prefer something a bit less pithy than `if` when the meaning of the bool doesn't read off clearly from the condition:
```rust
if set.insert(...) {
... // ???
} else {
...
}
match set.insert(...) {
// set.insert returns false if already present
false => ...,
true => ...,
}
```
Or `match` can be a better fit when the bool is playing the role more of a value than a branch condition:
```rust
impl ErrorCodes {
pub fn from(b: bool) -> Self {
match b {
true => ErrorCodes::Yes,
false => ErrorCodes::No,
}
}
}
```
And then there's plain old it's-1-line-shorter, which means we get 25% more content on a screen when stacking a sequence of conditions:
```rust
let old_noun = match old_binding.is_import() {
true => "import",
false => "definition",
};
let new_participle = match new_binding.is_import() {
true => "imported",
false => "defined",
};
```
Bottom line is I think this lint fits the bill better as a pedantic lint; I don't think linting on this by default is justified.
changelog: Remove match_bool from default set of enabled lints
Fixes#4226
This introduces the lint await_holding_lock. For async functions, we iterate
over all types in generator_interior_types and look for types named MutexGuard,
RwLockReadGuard, or RwLockWriteGuard. If we find one then we emit a lint.
If let else mutex
changelog: Adds lint to catch incorrect use of `Mutex::lock` in `if let` expressions with lock calls in any of the blocks.
closes: #5219
