Some accuracy lints for floating point operations
This will add some lints for accuracy on floating point operations suggested by @clarfon in #2040 (fixes#2040).
These are the remaining lints:
- [x] x.powi(2) => x * x
- [x] x.logN() / y.logN() => x.logbase(y)
- [x] x.logbase(E) => x.log()
- [x] x.logbase(10) => x.log10()
- [x] x.logbase(2) => x.log2().
- [x] x * PI / 180 => x.to_radians()
- [x] x * 180 / PI => x.to_degrees()
- [x] (x + 1).log() => x.log_1p()
- [x] sqrt(x * x + y * y) => x.hypot(y)
changelog: Included some accuracy lints for floating point operations
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_like_matches_macro
Suggests using the `matches!` macro from `std` where appropriate.
`redundant_pattern_matching` has been moved into the `matches` pass to allow suppressing the suggestion where `is_some` and friends are a better replacement.
changelog: new lint: `match_like_matches_macro`
This moves the range_minus_one lint to the pedantic category, so there
will not be any warnings emitted by default. This should work around
problems where the suggestion is impossible to resolve due to the range
consumer only accepting a specific range implementation, rather than the
`RangeBounds` trait (see #3307).
While it is possible to work around this by extracting the boundary into
a variable, I don't think clippy should encourage people to disable or
work around lints, but instead the lints should be fixable. So hopefully
this will help until a proper implementation checks what the range is
used for.
single_match_else - single expr/stmt else block corner case
One approach to fix#3489.
See discussion in the issue.
changelog: single_match_else - single expr/stmt else block corner case fix
Rollup of 14 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #70563 ([rustdoc] Page hash handling)
- #73856 (Edit librustc_lexer top-level docs)
- #73870 (typeck: adding type information to projection)
- #73953 (Audit hidden/short code suggestions)
- #73962 (libstd/net/tcp.rs: #![deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)])
- #73969 (mir: mark mir construction temporaries as internal)
- #73974 (Move A|Rc::as_ptr from feature(weak_into_raw) to feature(rc_as_ptr))
- #74067 (rustdoc: Restore underline text decoration on hover for FQN in header)
- #74074 (Fix the return type of Windows' `OpenOptionsExt::security_qos_flags`.)
- #74078 (Always resolve type@primitive as a primitive, not a module)
- #74089 (Add rust-analyzer to the build manifest)
- #74090 (Remove unused RUSTC_DEBUG_ASSERTIONS)
- #74102 (Fix const prop ICE)
- #74112 (Expand abbreviation in core::ffi description)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
typeck: adding type information to projection
This commit modifies the Place as follow:
* remove 'ty' from ProjectionKind
* add type information into to Projection
* replace 'ty' in Place with 'base_ty'
* introduce 'ty()' in `Place` to return the final type of the `Place`
* introduce `ty_before_projection()` in `Place` to return the type of
a `Place` before i'th projection is applied
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/5
Suggest `Option::map_or`(_else) for `if let Some { y } else { x }`
Fixes#5203
There are two issues with this code that I have noticed:
- Use of `Option::map_or` causes it to always evaluate the code in the else block. If that block is computationally expensive or if it updates some state (such as getting the next value from an iterator), then this change would cause the code to behave differently. In either of those circumstances, it should suggest Option::map_or_else, which takes both cases as a closure and runs one. However, I don't know how to check if the expression would change some state, so I left the lint's applicability as MaybeIncorrect.
- There are lints which can trigger on specific sub-cases of this lint (`if_let_some_result`, `question_mark`, and `while_let_loop`) and suggest different changes (usually better ones because they're more specific). Is this acceptable for clippy to give multiple suggestions, or should I have the code check if those other lints trigger and then not trigger this lint if they do?
changelog: Add lint [`option_if_let_else`]
