bors [Sun, 17 May 2020 05:41:39 +0000 (05:41 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5608 - flip1995:rustup, r=phansch
Rustup with git subtree
The commits from the last rustup #5587, are again included in this rustup, since I rebased the rustup. Lesson learned: never rebase, only merge when working with git subtree.
bors [Sat, 16 May 2020 20:17:11 +0000 (20:17 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5563 - ThibsG:MergeLints, r=flip1995
Merge some lints together
This PR merges following lints:
- `block_in_if_condition_expr` and `block_in_if_condition_stmt` → `blocks_in_if_conditions`
- `option_map_unwrap_or`, `option_map_unwrap_or_else` and `result_map_unwrap_or_else` → `map_unwrap`
- `option_unwrap_used` and `result_unwrap_used` → `unwrap_used`
- `option_expect_used` and `result_expect_used` → `expect_used`
- `wrong_pub_self_convention` into `wrong_self_convention`
- `for_loop_over_option` and `for_loop_over_result` → `for_loops_over_fallibles`
Lints that have already been merged since the issue was created:
- [x] `new_without_default` and `new_without_default_derive` → `new_without_default`
Need more discussion:
- `string_add` and `string_add_assign`: do we agree to merge them or not? Is there something more to do? → **not merge finally**
- `identity_op` and `modulo_one` → `useless_arithmetic`: seems outdated, since `modulo_arithmetic` has been created.
fixes #1078
changelog: Merging some lints together:
- `block_in_if_condition_expr` and `block_in_if_condition_stmt` → `blocks_in_if_conditions`
- `option_map_unwrap_or`, `option_map_unwrap_or_else` and `result_map_unwrap_or_else` → `map_unwrap_or`
- `option_unwrap_used` and `result_unwrap_used` → `unwrap_used`
- `option_expect_used` and `result_expect_used` → `expect_used`
- `for_loop_over_option` and `for_loop_over_result` → `for_loops_over_fallibles`
Ralf Jung [Sat, 16 May 2020 17:46:31 +0000 (19:46 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #72047 - Julian-Wollersberger:literal_error_reporting_cleanup, r=petrochenkov
Literal error reporting cleanup
While doing some performance work, I noticed some code duplication in `librustc_parser/lexer/mod.rs`, so I cleaned it up.
This PR is probably best reviewed commit by commit.
I'm not sure what the API stability practices for `librustc_lexer` are. Four public methods in `unescape.rs` can be removed, but two are used by clippy, so I left them in for now.
I could open a PR for Rust-Analyzer when this one lands.
But how do I open a PR for clippy? (Git submodules are frustrating to work with)
Dylan DPC [Sat, 16 May 2020 00:37:23 +0000 (02:37 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #72090 - RalfJung:rustc_driver-exit-code, r=oli-obk
rustc_driver: factor out computing the exit code
In a recent Miri PR I [added a convenience wrapper](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1405/files#diff-c3d602c5c8035a16699ce9c015bfeceaR125) around `catch_fatal_errors` and `run_compiler` that @oli-obk suggested I could upstream. However, after seeing what could be shared between `rustc_driver::main`, clippy and Miri, really the only thing I found is computing the exit code -- so that's what this PR does.
What prevents using the Miri convenience function in `rustc_driver::main` and clippy is that they do extra work inside `catch_fatal_errors`, and while I could abstract that away, clippy actually *computes the callbacks* inside there, and I fond no good way to abstract that and thus gave up. Maybe the clippy thing could be moved out, I am not sure if it ever can actually raise a `FatalErrorMarker` -- someone more knowledgeable in clippy would have to do that.
On this code Clippy calls it unidiomatic and suggests the following diff, which has different behavior in a way that I don't necessarily want.
```diff
- let mut good = do1();
- if !do2() {
- good = false;
- }
+ let good = if !do2() {
+ false
+ } else {
+ do1()
+ };
```
On exploring issues filed about this lint, I have found that other users have also struggled with inappropriate suggestions (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/4124, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3043, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2918, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2176) and suggestions that make the code worse (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3769, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2749). Overall I believe that this lint is still at nursery quality for now and should not be enabled.
---
changelog: Remove useless_let_if_seq from default set of enabled lints
bors [Thu, 14 May 2020 12:59:24 +0000 (12:59 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5583 - ebroto:reversed_empty_ranges, r=yaahc,flip1995
Reversed empty ranges
This lint checks range expressions with inverted limits which result in empty ranges. This includes also the ranges used to index slices.
The lint reverse_range_loop was covering iteration of reversed ranges in a for loop, which is a subset of what this new lint covers, so it has been removed. I'm not sure if that's the best choice. It would be doable to check in the new lint that we are not in the arguments of a for loop; I went for removing it because the logic was too similar to keep them separated.
changelog: Added reversed_empty_ranges lint that checks for ranges where the limits have been inverted, resulting in empty ranges. Removed reverse_range_loop which was covering a subset of the new lint.
bors [Sat, 9 May 2020 18:43:28 +0000 (18:43 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5564 - MrAwesome:master, r=flip1995
Allow `use super::*;` glob imports
changelog: Allow super::* glob imports
fixes #5554
fixes #5569
A first pass at #5554 - this allows all `use super::*` to pass, which may or may not be desirable. The original issue was around allowing test modules to import their entire parent modules - I'm happy to modify this to do that instead, may just need some guidance on how to implement that (I played around a bit with #[cfg(test)] but from what I can gather, clippy itself isn't in test mode when running, even if the code in question is being checked for the test target).
bors [Fri, 8 May 2020 10:34:50 +0000 (10:34 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5541 - DarkEld3r:patch-1, r=flip1995
Extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.
---
changelog: extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
bors [Wed, 6 May 2020 09:49:00 +0000 (09:49 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5566 - oli-obk:sync-from-rustc, r=flip1995
Update to rustc changes
changelog: none
So, turns out `git subtree push` dies in various interesting ways, but the source cause is that the rustc repo looks like
```
--- A --- B --- C ---
\--- D ---/
```
where `B` is the commit where I added clippy to rustc and `D` is an arbitrary other PR and `C` is the master branch (or an earlier commit in it). When we now do `git subtree push`, it doesn't stop looking for things to merge at `B` as it needs to look at `D`, too, but then the bad thing happens, and it doesn't stop at `A` either, and just goes on looking at the entire history of rustc in a recursive bash script. That recursion then quickly runs into a stack overflow. While we can increase the stack size via `ulimit -s 60000`, that just means I was waiting for 30 minutes looking at `git subtree push` counting up the number of commits it has looked at. I aborted that, as a process that needs 30 mins for a push is not reasonable.
This PR cheats by just doing a `cp -r ../rustc/src/tools/clippy/* .` inside my clippy checkout and committing all changes. I'm working on getting us a better workflow, but until then, this workaround will work nicely. Note that this requires a `git subrepo pull` to have occurred in the `rustc` checkout. It's not necessary to merge that pull in order to update clippy, it's just necessary in order to not revert code in the clippy repo that hasn't been synced yet to the rustc repo.
bors [Sat, 2 May 2020 13:53:39 +0000 (13:53 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5550 - ebroto:manual_non_exhaustive, r=flip1995
Implement the manual_non_exhaustive lint
Some implementation notes:
* Not providing automatic fixups because additional changes may be needed in other parts of the code, e.g. when constructing a struct.
* Even though the attribute is valid on enum variants, it's not possible to use the manual implementation of the pattern because the visibility is always public, so the lint ignores enum variants.
* Unit structs are also ignored, it's not possible to implement the pattern manually without fields.
* The attribute is not accepted in unions, so those are ignored too.
* Even though the original issue did not mention it, tuple structs are also linted because it's possible to apply the pattern manually.
changelog: Added the manual non-exhaustive implementation lint
bors [Sat, 2 May 2020 08:11:48 +0000 (08:11 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5536 - rail-rain:fix_manual_memcpy, r=phansch
Fix the bugs of `manual_memcpy`, simplify the suggestion and refactor it
While I’m working on the long procrastinated work to expand `manual_memcpy`(#1670), I found a few minor bugs and probably unidiomatic or old coding style. There is a brief explanation of changes to the behaviour this PR will make below. And, I have a questoin: do I need to add tests for the first and second fixed bugs? I thought it might be too rare cases to include the tests for those. I added for the last one though.
* Bug fix
* It negates resulted offsets (`src/dst_offset`) when `offset` is subtraction by 0. This PR will remove any subtraction by 0 as a part of minification.
```rust
for i in 0..5 {
dst[i - 0] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..5 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..-5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
|
```
* It prints `RangeTo` or `RangeFull` when both of `end` and `offset` are 0, which have different meaning. This PR will print 0. I could reject the cases `end` is 0, but I thought I won’t catch other cases `reverse_range_loop` will trigger, and it’s over to catch every such cases.
```rust
for i in 0..0 {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..0 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst.clone_from_slice(&src[..])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..0].clone_from_slice(&src[..0])`
|
```
* it prints four dots when `end` is `None`. This PR will ignore any `for` loops without `end` because a `for` loop that takes `RangeFrom` as its argument and contains indexing without the statements or the expressions that end loops such as `break` will definitely panic, and `manual_memcpy` should ignore the loops with such control flow.
```rust
fn manual_copy(src: &[u32], dst: &mut [u32]) {
for i in 0.. {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
}
```
```diff
-warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
- --> src/main.rs:2:14
- |
-LL | for i in 0.. {
- | ^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[....].clone_from_slice(&src[....])`
- |
```
* Simplification of the suggestion
* It prints 0 when `start` or `end` and `offset` are same (from #3323). This PR will use `RangeTo`
changelog: fixed the bugs of `manual_memcpy` and also simplify the suggestion.
Stanislav Tkach [Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:08:38 +0000 (12:08 +0300)]
Extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.