Clippy backport
r? `@Manishearth`
This is the accompanying PR to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114937. This needs to be merged before tomorrow, so that it gets into master, before beta is branched.
The second commit is pretty much an out-of cycle sync, so that we don't get backport-debt for next release cycle right away.
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` also mentioning you here, to make sure this is included in the beta branching.
Correctly handle async blocks for NEEDLESS_PASS_BY_REF_MUT
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11299.
The problem was that the `async block`s are popping a closure which we didn't go into, making it miss the mutable access to the variables.
cc `@Centri3`
changelog: none
[`useless_conversion`]: only lint on paths to fn items and fix FP in macro
Fixes#11065 (which is actually two issues: an ICE and a false positive)
It now makes sure that the function call path points to a function-like item (and not e.g. a `const` like in the linked issue), so that calling `TyCtxt::fn_sig` later in the lint does not ICE (fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11065#issuecomment-1616836099).
It *also* makes sure that the expression is not part of a macro call (fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11065#issuecomment-1616919639). ~~I'm not sure if there's a better way to check this other than to walk the parent expr chain and see if any of them are expansions.~~ (edit: it doesn't do this anymore)
changelog: [`useless_conversion`]: fix ICE when call receiver is a non-fn item
changelog: [`useless_conversion`]: don't lint if argument is a macro argument (fixes a FP)
r? `@llogiq` (reviewed #10814, which introduced these issues)
rustdoc: Fixes with --test-run-directory and relative paths.
Fixes#112191Fixes#112210
This fixes some issues with `--test-run-directory` and its interaction with `--runtool` and `--persist-doctests`. Relative directories don't work with `Command::current_dir` very well because it has platform-specific behavior with relative paths. This fixes it by avoiding the use of relative paths.
This is needed because cargo is switching to use `--test-run-directory`, and it uses relative paths when interacting with rustdoc/rustc.
Improve code readability by moving fmt args directly into the string
There are some of occurrences where I also transformed `write!(f, "{}", x)` into `f.write_str(x.as_str())`.
r? `@notriddle`
Avoid unnecessary Vec resize.
If `size > 0` current implementation will first create an empty vec and then push an element into it, which will cause a resize that can be easily avoided.
It's obviously not a big deal, but this also gets rid of `mut` local variable.
If `size > 0` current implementation will first create an empty
vec and then push an element into it, which will cause a resize
that can be easily avoided.
It's obviously not a big deal, but this also gets rid of `mut`
local variable.
When reporting a heap use-after-free, say where the allocation was allocated and deallocated
This is a partial solution to: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2917
Currently in the interpreter, we only have accurate information for where heap allocations are allocated and deallocated (see https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/2940#discussion_r1243559711). So this just implements support for allocations where the information is already available, and the full support will require more interpreter tweaks.
Point at return type when it influences non-first `match` arm
When encountering code like
```rust
fn foo() -> i32 {
match 0 {
1 => return 0,
2 => "",
_ => 1,
}
}
```
Point at the return type and not at the prior arm, as that arm has type `!` which isn't influencing the arm corresponding to arm `2`.
Fix#78124.
add a csky-unknown-linux-gnuabiv2 target
This is the rustc side changes to support csky based Linux target(`csky-unknown-linux-gnuabiv2`).
Tier 3 policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I pledge to do my best maintaining it.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
This `csky` section is the arch name and the `unknown-linux` section is the same as other linux target, and `gnuabiv2` is from the cross-compile toolchain of `gcc`
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
I think the explanation in platform support doc is enough to make this aspect clear.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
No new license
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
There are no new dependencies/features required.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
As previously said it's using open source tools only.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
There are no such terms present/
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
It supports for std
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
I have added the documentation, and I think it's clear.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
Understood.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
Understood.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
I believe I didn't break any other target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
bors