]> git.proxmox.com Git - rustc.git/blobdiff - src/tools/clippy/clippy_lints/src/copy_iterator.rs
Update upstream source from tag 'upstream/1.52.1+dfsg1'
[rustc.git] / src / tools / clippy / clippy_lints / src / copy_iterator.rs
diff --git a/src/tools/clippy/clippy_lints/src/copy_iterator.rs b/src/tools/clippy/clippy_lints/src/copy_iterator.rs
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..004bce5
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+use crate::utils::{is_copy, match_path, paths, span_lint_and_note};
+use rustc_hir::{Impl, Item, ItemKind};
+use rustc_lint::{LateContext, LateLintPass};
+use rustc_session::{declare_lint_pass, declare_tool_lint};
+
+declare_clippy_lint! {
+    /// **What it does:** Checks for types that implement `Copy` as well as
+    /// `Iterator`.
+    ///
+    /// **Why is this bad?** Implicit copies can be confusing when working with
+    /// iterator combinators.
+    ///
+    /// **Known problems:** None.
+    ///
+    /// **Example:**
+    /// ```rust,ignore
+    /// #[derive(Copy, Clone)]
+    /// struct Countdown(u8);
+    ///
+    /// impl Iterator for Countdown {
+    ///     // ...
+    /// }
+    ///
+    /// let a: Vec<_> = my_iterator.take(1).collect();
+    /// let b: Vec<_> = my_iterator.collect();
+    /// ```
+    pub COPY_ITERATOR,
+    pedantic,
+    "implementing `Iterator` on a `Copy` type"
+}
+
+declare_lint_pass!(CopyIterator => [COPY_ITERATOR]);
+
+impl<'tcx> LateLintPass<'tcx> for CopyIterator {
+    fn check_item(&mut self, cx: &LateContext<'tcx>, item: &'tcx Item<'_>) {
+        if let ItemKind::Impl(Impl {
+            of_trait: Some(ref trait_ref),
+            ..
+        }) = item.kind
+        {
+            let ty = cx.tcx.type_of(item.def_id);
+
+            if is_copy(cx, ty) && match_path(&trait_ref.path, &paths::ITERATOR) {
+                span_lint_and_note(
+                    cx,
+                    COPY_ITERATOR,
+                    item.span,
+                    "you are implementing `Iterator` on a `Copy` type",
+                    None,
+                    "consider implementing `IntoIterator` instead",
+                );
+            }
+        }
+    }
+}