[`default_constructed_unit_structs`]: do not lint on type alias paths
Fixes#10755.
Type aliases cannot be used as a constructor, so this lint should not trigger in those cases.
I also changed `clippy_utils::is_ty_alias` to also consider associated types since [they kinda are type aliases too](48ec50ae39/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late/diagnostics.rs (L1520)).
changelog: [`default_constructed_unit_structs`]: do not lint on type alias paths
Add new lint `ptr_cast_constness`
This adds a new lint which functions as the opposite side of the coin to `ptr_as_ptr`. Rather than linting only as casts that don't change constness, this lints only constness; suggesting to use `pointer::cast_const` or `pointer::cast_mut` instead.
changelog: new lint [`ptr_cast_constness`]
* Don't consider expansions of different macros to be the same, even if they expand to the same tokens
* Don't consider `cfg!` expansions to be equal if they check different configs.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Switch to `EarlyBinder` for `explicit_item_bounds`
Part of the work to finish https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105779.
This PR adds `EarlyBinder` to the return type of the `explicit_item_bounds` query and removes `bound_explicit_item_bounds`.
r? `@compiler-errors` (hope it's okay to request you, since you reviewed #110299 and #110498😃)
use `is_inside_const_context` for `in_constant` util fn
Fixes#10452.
This PR improves the `in_constant` util function to detect more cases of const contexts. Previously this function would not detect cases like expressions in array length position or expression in an inline const block `const { .. }`.
changelog: [`bool_to_int_with_if`]: recognize array length operand as being in a const context and don't suggest `usize::from` there
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
Make elaboration generic over input
Combines all the `elaborate_*` family of functions into just one, which is an iterator over the same type that you pass in (e.g. elaborating `Predicate` gives `Predicate`s, elaborating `Obligation`s gives `Obligation`s, etc.)
Initial support for return type notation (RTN)
See: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2023/02/13/return-type-notation-send-bounds-part-2/
1. Only supports `T: Trait<method(): Send>` style bounds, not `<T as Trait>::method(): Send`. Checking validity and injecting an implicit binder for all of the late-bound method generics is harder to do for the latter.
* I'd add this in a follow-up.
3. ~Doesn't support RTN in general type position, i.e. no `let x: <T as Trait>::method() = ...`~
* I don't think we actually want this.
5. Doesn't add syntax for "eliding" the function args -- i.e. for now, we write `method(): Send` instead of `method(..): Send`.
* May be a hazard if we try to add it in the future. I'll probably add it in a follow-up later, with a structured suggestion to change `method()` to `method(..)` once we add it.
7. ~I'm not in love with the feature gate name 😺~
* I renamed it to `return_type_notation` ✔️
Follow-up PRs will probably add support for `where T::method(): Send` bounds. I'm not sure if we ever want to support return-type-notation in arbitrary type positions. I may also make the bounds require `..` in the args list later.
r? `@ghost`
