Implement syntax for `impl Trait` to specify its captures explicitly (`feature(precise_capturing)`)
Implements `impl use<'a, 'b, T, U> Sized` syntax that allows users to explicitly list the captured parameters for an opaque, rather than inferring it from the opaque's bounds (or capturing *all* lifetimes under 2024-edition capture rules). This allows us to exclude some implicit captures, so this syntax may be used as a migration strategy for changes due to #117587.
We represent this list of captured params as `PreciseCapturingArg` in AST and HIR, resolving them between `rustc_resolve` and `resolve_bound_vars`. Later on, we validate that the opaques only capture the parameters in this list.
We artificially limit the feature to *require* mentioning all type and const parameters, since we don't currently have support for non-lifetime bivariant generics. This can be relaxed in the future.
We also may need to limit this to require naming *all* lifetime parameters for RPITIT, since GATs have no variance. I have to investigate this. This can also be relaxed in the future.
r? `@oli-obk`
Tracking issue:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
type certainty: clear `DefId` when an expression's type changes to non-adt
Fixes#12585
The root cause of the ICE in the linked issue was in the expression `one.x`, in the array literal.
The type of `one` is the `One` struct: an adt with a DefId, so its certainty is `Certain(def_id_of_one)`. However, the field access `.x` can then change the type (to `i32` here) and that should update that `DefId` accordingly. It does do that correctly when `one.x` would be another adt with a DefId:
97ba291d5a/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L90-L91)
but when it *isn't* an adt and there is no def id (which is the case in the linked issue: `one.x` is an i32), it keeps the `DefId` of `One`, even though that's the wrong type (which would then lead to a contradiction later when joining `Certainty`s):
97ba291d5a/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L92-L93)
In particular, in the linked issue, `from_array([one.x, two.x])` would try to join the `Certainty` of the two array elements, which *should* have been `[Certain(None), Certain(None)]`, because `i32`s have no `DefId`, but instead it was `[Certain(One), Certain(Two)]`, because the DefId wasn't cleared from when it was visiting `one` and `two`. This is the "contradiction" that could be seen in the ICE message
... so this changes it to clear the `DefId` when it isn't an adt.
cc `@smoelius` you implemented this initially in #11135, does this change make sense to you?
changelog: none
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
new lint `legacy_numeric_constants`
Rework of #10997
- uses diagnostic items
- does not lint imports of the float modules (`use std::f32`)
- does not lint usage of float constants that look like `f32::MIN`
I chose to make the float changes because the following pattern is actually pretty useful
```rust
use std::f32;
let omega = freq * 2 * f32::consts::PI;
```
and the float modules are not TBD-deprecated like the integer modules.
Closes#10995
---
changelog: New lint [`legacy_numeric_constants`]
[#12312](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12312)
Remove `unwrap` from `match_trait_method`
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that caused #12366.
Note: author (`@m-rph)` and `@GuillaumeGomez` couldn't replicate #12366.
changelog:none
r? `@blyxyas`
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match
trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that may have caused 12366.
Note: author (@m-rph) and @GuillaumeGomez couldn't replicate 12366.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
Experimental feature postfix match
This has a basic experimental implementation for the RFC postfix match (rust-lang/rfcs#3295, #121618). [Liaison is](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Postfix.20Match.20Liaison/near/423301844) ```@scottmcm``` with the lang team's [experimental feature gate process](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/src/how_to/experiment.md).
This feature has had an RFC for a while, and there has been discussion on it for a while. It would probably be valuable to see it out in the field rather than continue discussing it. This feature also allows to see how popular postfix expressions like this are for the postfix macros RFC, as those will take more time to implement.
It is entirely implemented in the parser, so it should be relatively easy to remove if needed.
This PR is split in to 5 commits to ease review.
1. The implementation of the feature & gating.
2. Add a MatchKind field, fix uses, fix pretty.
3. Basic rustfmt impl, as rustfmt crashes upon seeing this syntax without a fix.
4. Add new MatchSource to HIR for Clippy & other HIR consumers
Split an item bounds and an item's super predicates
This is the moral equivalent of #107614, but instead for predicates this applies to **item bounds**. This PR splits out the item bounds (i.e. *all* predicates that are assumed to hold for the alias) from the item *super predicates*, which are the subset of item bounds which share the same self type as the alias.
## Why?
Much like #107614, there are places in the compiler where we *only* care about super-predicates, and considering predicates that possibly don't have anything to do with the alias is problematic. This includes things like closure signature inference (which is at its core searching for `Self: Fn(..)` style bounds), but also lints like `#[must_use]`, error reporting for aliases, computing type outlives predicates.
Even in cases where considering all of the `item_bounds` doesn't lead to bugs, unnecessarily considering irrelevant bounds does lead to a regression (#121121) due to doing extra work in the solver.
## Example 1 - Trait Aliases
This is best explored via an example:
```
type TAIT<T> = impl TraitAlias<T>;
trait TraitAlias<T> = A + B where T: C;
```
The item bounds list for `Tait<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: A`
* `Tait<T>: B`
* `T: C`
While `item_super_predicates` query will include just the first two predicates.
Side-note: You may wonder why `T: C` is included in the item bounds for `TAIT`? This is because when we elaborate `TraitAlias<T>`, we will also elaborate all the predicates on the trait.
## Example 2 - Associated Type Bounds
```
type TAIT<T> = impl Iterator<Item: A>;
```
The `item_bounds` list for `TAIT<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: Iterator`
* `<Tait<T> as Iterator>::Item: A`
But the `item_super_predicates` will just include the first bound, since that's the only bound that is relevant to the *alias* itself.
## So what
This leads to some diagnostics duplication just like #107614, but none of it will be user-facing. We only see it in the UI test suite because we explicitly disable diagnostic deduplication.
Regarding naming, I went with `super_predicates` kind of arbitrarily; this can easily be changed, but I'd consider better names as long as we don't block this PR in perpetuity.
hir: Remove `opt_local_def_id_to_hir_id` and `opt_hir_node_by_def_id`
Also replace a few `hir_node()` calls with `hir_node_by_def_id()`.
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120943.
[`unused_enumerate_index`]: trigger on method calls
The lint used to check for patterns looking like:
```rs
for (_, x) in some_iter.enumerate() {
// Index is ignored
}
```
This commit further checks for chained method calls constructs where we
can detect that the index is unused. Currently, this checks only for the
following patterns:
```rs
some_iter.enumerate().map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
let x = some_iter.enumerate();
x.map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
```
where `map_function` is one of `all`, `any`, `filter_map`, `find_map`,
`flat_map`, `for_each` or `map`.
Fixes#12411.
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`unused_enumerate_index`]: add detection for method chains such as `iter.enumerate().map(|(_, x)| x)`
The lint used to check for patterns looking like:
```rs
for (_, x) in some_iter.enumerate() {
// Index is ignored
}
```
This commit further checks for chained method calls constructs where we
can detect that the index is unused. Currently, this checks only for the
following patterns:
```rs
some_iter.enumerate().map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
let x = some_iter.enumerate();
x.map_function(|(_, x)| ..)
```
where `map_function` is one of `all`, `any`, `filter_map`, `find_map`,
`flat_map`, `for_each` or `map`.
Fixes#12411.
lint when calling the blanket `Into` impl from a `From` impl
Closes#11150
```
warning: function cannot return without recursing
--> x.rs:9:9
|
9 | / fn from(value: f32) -> Self {
10 | | value.into()
11 | | }
| |_________^
|
note: recursive call site
--> x.rs:10:13
|
10 | value.into()
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
I'm also thinking that we can probably generalize this lint to #11032 at some point (instead of hardcoding a bunch of impls), like how rustc's `unconditional_recursion` works, at least up to one indirect call, but this still seems useful for now :)
I've also noticed that we use `fn_def_id` in a bunch of lints and then try to get the node args of the call in a separate step, so I made a helper function that does both in one. I intend to refactor a bunch of uses of `fn_def_id` to use this later
I can add more test cases, but this is already using much of the same logic that exists for the other impls that this lint looks for (e.g. making sure that there are no conditional returns).
changelog: [`unconditional_recursion`]: emit a warning inside of `From::from` when unconditionally calling the blanket `.into()` impl
