rustc: Fix bugs in renamed and removed lints and re-add raw_pointer_derive #30878
Conversation
brson
force-pushed
the
raw-pointer-derive
branch
from
e86f816 to
a13b094
Compare
brson
added
the
beta-nominated
brson
force-pushed
the
raw-pointer-derive
branch
from
a13b094 to
d46117b
Compare
| Level::Forbid => "-F", | ||
| }, | ||
| lint_name); | ||
| sess.note_without_error(&msg); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use a structural error (you probably would want to return one from check_lint_name in some form?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, yes, this is true. It'd be better to return the error and attach the note to it -- that would also mean that the caller is always the one that ultimately reports all warnings/errors, which seems good.
|
This looks good to me, though I think that restructuring to return a |
brson
force-pushed
the
raw-pointer-derive
branch
from
d46117b to
a9efbeb
Compare
|
r? @nikomatsakis I've addressed all points. |
brson
added
the
beta-accepted
|
@rust-lang/compiler I tagged this beta-accepted, assuming you would be cool with it. @nikomatsakis and I at least have discussed it a lot. |
|
r=me modulo nits, and I think backporting makes sense. Looks pretty non-invasive. |
brson
force-pushed
the
raw-pointer-derive
branch
from
a9efbeb to
ca81d3d
Compare
|
r=nikomatsakis |
|
@bors r+ p=1 |
|
📌 Commit ca81d3d has been approved by |
This adds back the raw_pointer_derive lint as a 'removed' lint, so that its removal does not cause errors (#30346) but warnings. In the process I discovered regressions in the code for renamed and removed lints, which didn't appear to have any tests. The addition of a second lint pass (ast vs. hir) meant that attributes were being inspected twice, renamed and removed warnings printed twice. I restructured the code so these tests are only done once and added tests. Unfortunately it makes the patch more complicated for the needed beta backport. r? @nikomatsakis
brson
removed
the
beta-nominated
This adds back the raw_pointer_derive lint as a 'removed' lint, so that its removal does not cause errors (#30346) but warnings.
In the process I discovered regressions in the code for renamed and removed lints, which didn't appear to have any tests. The addition of a second lint pass (ast vs. hir) meant that attributes were being inspected twice, renamed and removed warnings printed twice. I restructured the code so these tests are only done once and added tests. Unfortunately it makes the patch more complicated for the needed beta backport.
r? @nikomatsakis