[arithmetic-side-effects] More non-overflowing ops
* Adding or Subtracting 0
* Division and Module of anything other than 0
* Multiplying 1 or 0
changelog: [arithmetic-side-effects] More non-overflowing operations
Fix dev book
fix `implements_trait` and `in_external_macro` import path
Remove example using `match_trait_method` since its deprecated.
changelog: none
Don't panic on invalid shift while constfolding
Instead of panicking on invalid shifts while folding constants we simply give up. Fixes#9463
Notice the "attempt to shift right by `1316134912_u32`", which seems weird. AFAICS it comes from rustc itself.
changelog: none
Don't lint `large_stack_array` inside static items
We now check if the linted `Expr` is inside an `ItemKind::Static`, which can't take the suggested `Box<[...]`. I _think_ this is the correct fix for #9460
I removed `if_chain` while I was at it.
changelog: Don't lint `large_stack_array` inside static items
Use macro callsite when creating `Sugg` helper
Closes#9375
changelog: Improvement: [`collapsible_if`]: Suggestions now work with macros, by taking the call site into account.
[`assertions_on_result_states`]: Fix suggestion when `assert!` is not in a statement.
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9450
changelog: [`assertions_on_result_states`]: Fix suggestion when `assert!` is not in a statement.
Replace u128 with u64 in large_enum_variant uitest
A u128 has [an 8 byte alignment on x86](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54341), but a 16 byte alignment on aarch64 which changes the size of the enums due to extra padding. This means the test fails on aarch64
changelog: none
Fix `range_{plus,minus}_one` bad suggestions
Fixes#9431.
The current `range_plus_one` and `range_minus_one` suggestions are completely incorrect when macros are involved.
This commit resolves this by disabling the lints for any range expression that is expanded from a macro. The reasons for this are that it is very difficult to create a correct suggestion in this case and that false negatives are less important for pedantic lints.
changelog: Fix `range_{plus,minus}_one` bad suggestions
Fixes#9431.
The current `range_plus_one` and `range_minus_one` suggestions
are completely incorrect when macros are involved.
This commit resolves this by disabling the lints for any range
expression that is expanded from a macro. The reasons for this
are that it is very difficult to create a correct suggestion in
this case and that false negatives are less important for
pedantic lints.
Update cargo in lintcheck_crates.toml
0.49.0 depends on a version of socket2 that no longer builds due to
```
error[E0512]: cannot transmute between types of different sizes, or dependently-sized types
--> /home/alex/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/socket2-0.3.11/src/sockaddr.rs:156:9
|
156 | mem::transmute::<SocketAddrV4, sockaddr_in>(v4);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: source type: `SocketAddrV4` (48 bits)
= note: target type: `sockaddr_in` (128 bits)
```
changelog: none
[Arithmetic] Consider literals
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9307 and makes the `arithmetic` lint behave like `integer_arithmetic`.
It is worth noting that literal integers of a binary operation (`1 + 1`, `i32::MAX + 1`), **regardless if they are in a constant environment**, won't trigger the lint. Assign operations also have similar reasoning.
changelog: Consider literals in the arithmetic lint
Suggest `unwrap_or_default` when closure returns `"".to_string`
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9420
changelog: [`unwrap_or_else_default`]: suggest `unwrap_or_default()` instead of `unwrap_or_else` with a closure that returns an empty `to_string`.
`BindingAnnotation` refactor
* `ast::BindingMode` is deleted and replaced with `hir::BindingAnnotation` (which is moved to `ast`)
* `BindingAnnotation` is changed from an enum to a tuple struct e.g. `BindingAnnotation(ByRef::No, Mutability::Mut)`
* Associated constants added for convenience `BindingAnnotation::{NONE, REF, MUT, REF_MUT}`
One goal is to make it more clear that `BindingAnnotation` merely represents syntax `ref mut` and not the actual binding mode. This was especially confusing since we had `ast::BindingMode`->`hir::BindingAnnotation`->`thir::BindingMode`.
I wish there were more symmetry between `ByRef` and `Mutability` (variant) naming (maybe `Mutable::Yes`?), and I also don't love how long the name `BindingAnnotation` is, but this seems like the best compromise. Ideas welcome.
bors