This is done to simplify to relationship between names() and values()
but also make thing clearer (having an Any to represent that any values
are allowed) but also to allow the (none) + values expected cases that
wasn't possible before.
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.
Currently, deriving on packed structs has some non-trivial limitations,
related to the fact that taking references on unaligned fields is UB.
The current approach to field accesses in derived code:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct that derives `Copy`: `&{self.0}`
- In a packed struct that doesn't derive `Copy`: `&self.0`
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for any
packed generic type, because it's possible that there might be
misaligned fields. This is a fairly broad restriction.
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for most
packed types that don't derive `Copy`. (The exceptions are those where the
alignments inherently satisfy the packing, e.g. in a type with
`repr(packed(N))` where all the fields have alignments of `N` or less
anyway. Such types are pretty strange, because the `packed` attribute is
not having any effect.)
This commit introduces a new, simpler approach to field accesses:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct: `&{self.0}`
In the latter case, this requires that all fields impl `Copy`, which is
a new restriction. This means that the following example compiles under
the old approach and doesn't compile under the new approach.
```
#[derive(Debug)]
struct NonCopy(u8);
#[derive(Debug)
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(NonCopy);
```
(Note that the old approach's support for cases like this was brittle.
Changing the `u8` to a `u16` would be enough to stop it working. So not
much capability is lost here.)
However, the other constraints from the old rules are removed. We can now
derive builtin traits for packed generic structs like this:
```
trait Trait { type A; }
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo<T: Trait>(T, T::A);
```
To allow this, we add a `T: Copy` bound in the derived impl and a `T::A:
Copy` bound in where clauses. So `T` and `T::A` must impl `Copy`.
We can now also derive builtin traits for packed structs that don't derive
`Copy`, so long as the fields impl `Copy`:
```
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo(u32);
```
This includes types that hand-impl `Copy` rather than deriving it, such as the
following, that show up in winapi-0.2:
```
#[derive(Clone)]
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(i32);
impl Copy for MyType {}
```
The new approach is simpler to understand and implement, and it avoids
the need for the `unsafe_derive_on_repr_packed` check.
One exception is required for backwards-compatibility: we allow `[u8]`
fields for now. There is a new lint for this,
`byte_slice_in_packed_struct_with_derive`.
The no_lint_suggestion routine passes a vector of lint group names
to find_best_match_for_name. That routine depends on the sort
order of its input vector, which matters in case multiple inputs
are at the same Levenshtein distance to the target name.
However, no_lint_suggestion currently just passes lint_groups.keys()
as input vector - this is sorted in hash value order, which is not
guaranteed to be stable, and in fact differs between big- and
little-endian host platforms, causing test failures on s390x.
To fix this, always sort the lint groups before using their names
as input to find_best_match_for_name. In addition, deprecated
lint groups should never be suggested, so filter those out.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105379
fix: lint against the functions `LintContext::{lookup_with_diagnostics,lookup,struct_span_lint,lint}`, `TyCtxt::struct_lint_node`, `LintLevelsBuilder::struct_lint`.
fix a ui test
use `into`
fix clippy ui test
fix a run-make-fulldeps test
implement `IntoQueryParam<DefId>` for `OwnerId`
use `OwnerId` for more queries
change the type of `ParentOwnerIterator::Item` to `(OwnerId, OwnerNode)`
For named arguments used as implicit position arguments, underline both
the opening curly brace and either:
* if there is formatting, the next character (which will either be the
closing curl brace or the `:` denoting the start of formatting args)
* if there is no formatting, the entire arg span (important if there is
whitespace like `{ }`)
This should make it more obvious where the named argument should be.
Additionally, in the lint message, emit the formatting argument names
without a dollar sign to avoid potentially confusion.
Fixes#99907
Address issue #99265 by checking each positionally used argument
to see if the argument is named and adding a lint to use the name
instead. This way, when named arguments are used positionally in a
different order than their argument order, the suggested lint is
correct.
For example:
```
println!("{b} {}", a=1, b=2);
```
This will now generate the suggestion:
```
println!("{b} {a}", a=1, b=2);
```
Additionally, this check now also correctly replaces or inserts
only where the positional argument is (or would be if implicit).
Also, width and precision are replaced with their argument names
when they exists.
Since the issues were so closely related, this fix for issue #99265
also fixes issue #99266.
Fixes#99265Fixes#99266
Addresses Issue 98466 by emitting a warning if a named argument
is used like a position argument (i.e. the name is not used in
the string to be formatted).
Fixes rust-lang#98466
Finishing touches for `#[expect]` (RFC 2383)
This PR adds documentation and some functionality to rustc's lint passes, to manually fulfill expectations. This is needed for some lints in Clippy. Hopefully, it should be one of the last things before we can move forward with stabilizing this feature.
As part of this PR, I've also updated `clippy::duplicate_mod` to showcase how this new functionality can be used and to ensure that it works correctly.
---
changelog: [`duplicate_mod`]: Fixed lint attribute interaction
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97660, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
And I guess that's it. Here have a magical unicorn 🦄
Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383)
Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope.
This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust.
This will probably conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix.
---
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃
Follow-up of: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
Yeah, and that's it.
