Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Collect various one-off analysis tidbits into a 'lint' pass #1543

Closed
brson opened this issue Jan 16, 2012 · 6 comments
Closed

Collect various one-off analysis tidbits into a 'lint' pass #1543

brson opened this issue Jan 16, 2012 · 6 comments
Labels
A-lint Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut. C-enhancement Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one. E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Milestone

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jan 16, 2012

I don't really feel that little things like #1539 should be buried in semi-arbitrary passes that have other important responsibilities. These little nice-to-have checks should probably be corralled somewhere where they can be switched on and off in an orderly way.

Edit: changed pass name to "lint", as discussed on IRC

@ghost ghost assigned lht Jan 19, 2012
lht added a commit to lht/rust that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2012
This patch starts from move the analysis which checkes of probably
incorrectly usage of `int|uint` in native fn.

Issue rust-lang#1543
@lht
Copy link
Contributor

lht commented Jan 19, 2012

@brson Please review if 460a81a implemented what you meant?

I feel there should be a better name for the pass and option, but I cannot come up one. Please suggest if you have a better idea.

@lht
Copy link
Contributor

lht commented Jan 19, 2012

Also as discussed on IRC, a crate attribute will be added for switching the various one-off analyses. For example:
#[lint(ctypes, unused-imports)]

lht added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2012
This patch starts from move the analysis which checkes of probably
incorrectly usage of `int|uint` in native fn.

Issue #1543
lht added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2012
lht added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 21, 2012
A crate attribute like `#[lint(no_ctypes)]` can now be used to turn off
ctypes checking.

Issue #1543
@graydon
Copy link
Contributor

graydon commented Jan 31, 2012

We discussed this a bit during a meeting today, in terms of the ability to control warnings and errors by attribute. I think the consensus was to make most warnings-and-errors controllable via an attribute, perhaps #[warn(...)] and #[error(...)]? If we do this, I don't mind keeping the lint source-module for "miscellaneous checks" but perhaps we can remove the lint attribute in favour of the warn and error ones?

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Mar 15, 2012

Punting on this for 0.2

@ghost ghost assigned lht Mar 16, 2012
@lht
Copy link
Contributor

lht commented Mar 16, 2012

Assigned to myself. Looks like I'll finally find some time work on Rust. :)

@catamorphism
Copy link
Contributor

As far as I can tell, this is finished? If it's not, please open more specific individual bugs.

@brson brson unassigned lht Jun 16, 2014
celinval added a commit to celinval/rust-dev that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
* Move build docs script to be under scripts/

* Add RFC book and an RFC template

* Build rfc book as part of build docs
.

Co-authored-by: Jaisurya Nanduri <91620234+jaisnan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Schwartz-Narbonne <danielsn@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Palacios <73246657+adpaco-aws@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-lint Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut. C-enhancement Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one. E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants