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.
bump conflicting_repr_hints lint to be shown in dependencies
This has been a future compatibility lint for years, let's bump it up to be shown in dependencies (so that hopefully we can then make it a hard error fairly soon).
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/68585
Stabilize `unsafe_attributes`
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This is a tracking issue for the RFC 3325: unsafe attributes
We are stabilizing `#![feature(unsafe_attributes)]`, which makes certain attributes considered 'unsafe', meaning that they must be surrounded by an `unsafe(...)`, as in `#[unsafe(no_mangle)]`.
RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3325
Tracking issue: #123757
## What is stabilized
### Summary of stabilization
Certain attributes will now be designated as unsafe attributes, namely, `no_mangle`, `export_name`, and `link_section` (stable only), and these attributes will need to be called by surrounding them in `unsafe(...)` syntax. On editions prior to 2024, this is simply an edition lint, but it will become a hard error in 2024. This also works in `cfg_attr`, but `unsafe` is not allowed for any other attributes, including proc-macros ones.
```rust
#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
fn a() {}
#[cfg_attr(any(), unsafe(export_name = "c"))]
fn b() {}
```
For a table showing the attributes that were considered to be included in the list to require unsafe, and subsequent reasoning about why each such attribute was or was not included, see [this comment here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124214#issuecomment-2124753464)
## Tests
The relevant tests are in `tests/ui/rust-2024/unsafe-attributes` and `tests/ui/attributes/unsafe`.
turn `invalid_type_param_default` into a `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`
`````@rust-lang/types````` I assume the plan is still to disallow this? It has been a future-compat lint for a long time, seems ripe to go for hard error.
However, turns out that outright removing it right now would lead to [tons of crater regressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127655#issuecomment-2228285460), so for now this PR just makes this future-compat lint show up in cargo's reports, so people are warned when they use a dependency that is affected by this.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27336 by removing the feature gate (so there's no way to silence the lint even on nightly)
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36887
Add `REDUNDANT_IMPORTS` lint for new redundant import detection
Defaults to Allow for now. Stacked on #123744 to avoid merge conflict, but much easier to review all as one.
r? petrochenkov
Remove `crate_level_only` from `ELIDED_LIFETIMES_IN_PATHS`
As far as I can tell, we provide the right node id to the `ELIDED_LIFETIMES_IN_PATHS` lint:
f8060d282d/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late.rs (L2015-L2027)
So I've gone ahead and removed the restriction from this lint.
Add migration lint for 2024 prelude additions
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and `into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
tracked by #121042
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
r? compiler-errors as the method prober
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and
`into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the
respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to
hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
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
Make casts of pointers to trait objects stricter
This is an attempt to `fix` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120222 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120217.
This is done by adding restrictions on casting pointers to trait objects.
Before this PR the rules were as follows:
> When casting `*const X<dyn A>` -> `*const Y<dyn B>`, principal traits in `A` and `B` must refer to the same trait definition (or no trait).
With this PR the rules are changed to
> When casting `*const X<dyn Src>` -> `*const Y<dyn Dst>`
> - if `Dst` has a principal trait `DstP`,
> - `Src` must have a principal trait `SrcP`
> - `dyn SrcP` and `dyn DstP` must be the same type (modulo the trait object lifetime, `dyn T+'a` -> `dyn T+'b` is allowed)
> - Auto traits in `Dst` must be a subset of auto traits in `Src`
> - Not adhering to this is currently a FCW (warn-by-default + `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`), instead of an error
> - if `Src` has a principal trait `Dst` must as well
> - this restriction will be removed in a follow up PR
This ensures that
1. Principal trait's generic arguments match (no `*const dyn Tr<A>` -> `*const dyn Tr<B>` casts, which are a problem for [#120222](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120222))
2. Principal trait's lifetime arguments match (no `*const dyn Tr<'a>` -> `*const dyn Tr<'b>` casts, which are a problem for [#120217](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120217))
3. No auto traits can be _added_ (this is a problem for arbitrary self types, see [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120248#discussion_r1463835350))
Some notes:
- We only care about the metadata/last field, so you can still cast `*const dyn T` to `*const WithHeader<dyn T>`, etc
- The lifetime of the trait object itself (`dyn A + 'lt`) is not checked, so you can still cast `*mut FnOnce() + '_` to `*mut FnOnce() + 'static`, etc
- This feels fishy, but I couldn't come up with a reason it must be checked
The diagnostics are currently not great, to say the least, but as far as I can tell this correctly fixes the issues.
cc `@oli-obk` `@compiler-errors` `@lcnr`
Make `NEVER_TYPE_FALLBACK_FLOWING_INTO_UNSAFE` a deny-by-default lint in edition 2024
I don't actually really care about this, but ``@traviscross`` asked me to do this, because lang team briefly discussed this before.
(TC here:)
Specifically, our original FCPed plan included this step:
- Add a lint against fallback affecting a generic that is passed to an `unsafe` function.
- Perhaps make this lint `deny-by-default` or a hard error in Rust 2024.
That is, we had left as an open question strengthening this in Rust 2024, and had marked it as an open question on the tracking issue. We're nominating here to address the open question. (Closing the remaining open question helps us to fully mark this off for Rust 2024.)
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123748
docs(rustc): Improve discoverable of Cargo docs
In preparing Cargo's blog post for 1.80, I tried to find the documentation for the lint configuration and I couldn't. The link is only visible from the lint itself, which isn't where I started, and the side bar, which was collapsed for me.
The first place I went was the docs for `unexpected_cfgs` because this is configuration for that lint. If using lint configuration were a one off, I could see skipping it here. However, when we discussed this with at least one T-compiler member, there was interest in using this for other lints in the future. To that end, it seems like we should be exposing this with the lint itself.
The second place I checked was the `check-cfg` documentation. This now has a call out for the sub-page.
This is the first time we have a lint with configuration exposed in
`Cargo.toml`.
When this was done, interest was expressed in using this for other cases
in the future.
To this end, we need to make the documentation for the lint
configuration discoverable from the documentation for that lint.
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`).
Nicholas Nethercote