const-eval interning: accept interior mutable pointers in final value
…but keep rejecting mutable references
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121610 by no longer firing the lint when there is a pointer with interior mutability in the final value of the constant. On stable, such pointers can be created with code like:
```rust
pub enum JsValue {
Undefined,
Object(Cell<bool>),
}
impl Drop for JsValue {
fn drop(&mut self) {}
}
// This does *not* get promoted since `JsValue` has a destructor.
// However, the outer scope rule applies, still giving this 'static lifetime.
const UNDEFINED: &JsValue = &JsValue::Undefined;
```
It's not great to accept such values since people *might* think that it is legal to mutate them with unsafe code. (This is related to how "infectious" `UnsafeCell` is, which is a [wide open question](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/236).) However, we [explicitly document](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html) that things created by `const` are immutable. Furthermore, we also accept the following even more questionable code without any lint today:
```rust
let x: &'static Option<Cell<i32>> = &None;
```
This is even more questionable since it does *not* involve a `const`, and yet still puts the data into immutable memory. We could view this as promotion [potentially introducing UB](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493). However, we've accepted this since ~forever and it's [too late to reject this now](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122789); the pattern is just too useful.
So basically, if you think that `UnsafeCell` should be tracked fully precisely, then you should want the lint we currently emit to be removed, which this PR does. If you think `UnsafeCell` should "infect" surrounding `enum`s, the big problem is really https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493 which does not trigger the lint -- the cases the lint triggers on are actually the "harmless" ones as there is an explicit surrounding `const` explaining why things end up being immutable.
What all this goes to show is that the hard error added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 (later turned into the future-compat lint that I am now suggesting we remove) was based on some wrong assumptions, at least insofar as it concerns shared references. Furthermore, that lint does not help at all for the most problematic case here where the potential UB is completely implicit. (In fact, the lint is actively in the way of [my preferred long-term strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493#issuecomment-2028674105) for dealing with this UB.) So I think we should go back to square one and remove that error/lint for shared references. For mutable references, it does seem to work as intended, so we can keep it. Here it serves as a safety net in case the static checks that try to contain mutable references to the inside of a const initializer are not working as intended; I therefore made the check ICE to encourage users to tell us if that safety net is triggered.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122153 by removing the lint.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@rust-lang/lang`
make writes_through_immutable_pointer a hard error
This turns the lint added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 into a hard error. This has been reported in cargo's future-compat reports since Rust 1.76 (released in February). Given that const_mut_refs is still unstable, it should be impossible to even hit this error on stable: we did accidentally stabilize some functions that can cause this error, but that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117905. Still, let's do a crater run just to be sure.
Given that this should only affect unstable code, I don't think it needs an FCP, but let's Cc ``@rust-lang/lang`` anyway -- any objection to making this unambiguous UB into a hard error during const-eval? This can be viewed as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129195 which is already nominated for discussion.
Use `#[rustfmt::skip]` on some `use` groups to prevent reordering.
`use` declarations will be reformatted in #125443. Very rarely, there is a desire to force a group of `use` declarations together in a way that auto-formatting will break up. E.g. when you want a single comment to apply to a group. #126776 dealt with all of these in the codebase, ensuring that no comments intended for multiple `use` declarations would end up in the wrong place. But some people were unhappy with it.
This commit uses `#[rustfmt::skip]` to create these custom `use` groups in an idiomatic way for a few of the cases changed in #126776. This works because rustfmt treats any `use` item annotated with `#[rustfmt::skip]` as a barrier and won't reorder other `use` items around it.
r? `@cuviper`
Implement lint against ambiguous negative literals
This PR implements a lint against ambiguous negative literals with a literal and method calls right after it.
## `ambiguous_negative_literals`
(deny-by-default)
The `ambiguous_negative_literals` lint checks for cases that are confusing between a negative literal and a negation that's not part of the literal.
### Example
```rust,compile_fail
-1i32.abs(); // equals -1, while `(-1i32).abs()` equals 1
```
### Explanation
Method calls take precedence over unary precedence. Setting the precedence explicitly makes the code clearer and avoid potential bugs.
<details>
<summary>Old proposed lint</summary>
## `ambiguous_unary_precedence`
(deny-by-default)
The `ambiguous_unary_precedence` lint checks for use the negative unary operator with a literal and method calls.
### Example
```rust
-1i32.abs(); // equals -1, while `(-1i32).abs()` equals 1
```
### Explanation
Unary operations take precedence on binary operations and method calls take precedence over unary precedence. Setting the precedence explicitly makes the code clearer and avoid potential bugs.
</details>
-----
Note: This is a strip down version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117161, without the binary op precedence.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117155
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated
cc `@scottmcm`
r? compiler
`use` declarations will be reformatted in #125443. Very rarely, there is
a desire to force a group of `use` declarations together in a way that
auto-formatting will break up. E.g. when you want a single comment to
apply to a group. #126776 dealt with all of these in the codebase,
ensuring that no comments intended for multiple `use` declarations would
end up in the wrong place. But some people were unhappy with it.
This commit uses `#[rustfmt::skip]` to create these custom `use` groups
in an idiomatic way for a few of the cases changed in #126776. This
works because rustfmt treats any `use` item annotated with
`#[rustfmt::skip]` as a barrier and won't reorder other `use` items
around it.
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
add lint for inline asm labels that look like binary
fixes#94426
Due to a bug/feature in LLVM, labels composed of only the digits `0` and `1` can sometimes be confused with binary literals, even if a binary literal would not be valid in that position.
This PR adds detection for such labels and also as a drive-by change, adds a note to cases such as `asm!(include_str!("file"))` that the label that it found came from an expansion of a macro, it wasn't found in the source code.
I expect this PR to upset some people that were using labels `0:` or `1:` without issue because they never hit the case where LLVM got it wrong, but adding a heuristic to the lint to prevent this is not feasible - it would involve writing a whole assembly parser for every target that we have assembly support for.
[zulip discussion](445870628)
r? ``@estebank``
Implement simple, unstable lint to suggest turning closure-of-async-block into async-closure
We want to eventually suggest people to turn `|| async {}` to `async || {}`. This begins doing that. It's a pretty rudimentary lint, but I wanted to get something down so I wouldn't lose the code.
Tracking:
* #62290
This is adding a migration lint for the current (in the 2021 edition and previous)
to move expr to expr_2021 from expr
Co-Developed-by: Eric Holk
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Turn remaining non-structural-const-in-pattern lints into hard errors
This completes the implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120362 by turning our remaining future-compat lints into hard errors: indirect_structural_match and pointer_structural_match.
They have been future-compat lints for a while (indirect_structural_match for many years, pointer_structural_match since Rust 1.75 (released Dec 28, 2023)), and have shown up in dependency breakage reports since Rust 1.78 (just released on May 2, 2024). I don't expect a lot of code will still depend on them, but we will of course do a crater run.
A lot of cleanup is now possible in const_to_pat, but that is deferred to a later PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70861
Deny gen keyword in `edition_2024_compat` lints
Splits the `keyword_idents` lint into two -- `keyword_idents_2018` and `keyword_idents_2024` -- since each corresponds to a future-compat warning in a different edition. Group these together into a new `keyword_idents` lint group, and add the latter to the `rust_2024_compatibility` so that `gen` is ready for the 2024 edition.
cc `@traviscross` `@ehuss`
It's a specialized form of the `UntranslatableDiagnostic` lint that is
deny-by-default.
Now that `UntranslatableDiagnostic` has been changed from
allow-by-default to deny-by-default, the trivial variant is no longer
needed.
Split Diagnostics for Uncommon Codepoints: Add Individual Identifier Types
This pull request further modifies the `uncommon_codepoints` lint, adding the individual identifier types of `Technical`, `Not_NFKC`, `Exclusion` and `Limited_Use` to the diagnostic message.
Example rendered diagnostic:
```
error: identifier contains a Unicode codepoint that is not used in normalized strings: 'ij'
--> $DIR/lint-uncommon-codepoints.rs:6:4
|
LL | fn dijkstra() {}
| ^^^^^^^
= note: this character is included in the Not_NFKC Unicode general security profile
```
Second step of #120228.
