It's very useful. There are some false positives involving integration
tests in `rustc_pattern_analysis` and `rustc_serialize`. There is also a
false positive involving `rustc_driver_impl`'s
`rustc_randomized_layouts` feature. And I removed a `rustc_span` mention
in a doc comment in `rustc_log` because it wasn't integral to the
comment but caused a dev-dependency.
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138084> to buy time to
consider options that avoids breaking downstream usages of cargo on
distributed `rustc-src` artifacts, where such cargo invocations fail due
to inability to inherit `lints` from workspace root manifest's
`workspace.lints` (this is only valid for the source rust-lang/rust
workspace, but not really the distributed `rustc-src` artifacts).
This breakage was reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138304>.
This reverts commit 48caf81484, reversing
changes made to c6662879b2.
By naming them in `[workspace.lints.rust]` in the top-level
`Cargo.toml`, and then making all `compiler/` crates inherit them with
`[lints] workspace = true`. (I omitted `rustc_codegen_{cranelift,gcc}`,
because they're a bit different.)
The advantages of this over the current approach:
- It uses a standard Cargo feature, rather than special handling in
bootstrap. So, easier to understand, and less likely to get
accidentally broken in the future.
- It works for proc macro crates.
It's a shame it doesn't work for rustc-specific lints, as the comments
explain.
Create the rustc_sanitizers crate and move the source code for the CFI
and KCFI sanitizers to it.
Co-authored-by: David Wood <agile.lion3441@fuligin.ink>
