New lint: nonnull_unchecked_on_box_ptr#17336
Conversation
|
r? @Jarcho rustbot has assigned @Jarcho. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
31e604e to
d5ef013
Compare
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
|
@rustbot label lint-nominated |
|
This lint has been nominated for inclusion. |
|
Note: this implementation will need to be updated to suggest Box::from_non_null (rust-lang/rust#130364) once that is merged. |
|
@Jarcho How does this look? |
|
I suggest |
|
Lintcheck changes for 3a1e8f6
This comment will be updated if you push new changes |
|
@rustbot ready |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
698355c to
25f3a7e
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@rustbot squash |
|
Oh, this isn't bors, forgot |
96e70a6 to
05132ba
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
05132ba to
3a1e8f6
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
changelog: [
nonnull_unchecked_on_box_ptr]: implement new lintNow that
NonNull::from_mutis stable, we can check and suggest a fix against a common pattern: usingunsafe { NonNull::new_unchecked(Box::into_raw(x)) }instead ofNonNull::from_mut(Box::leak(x)). This was first mentioned in this comment..stderrfile)cargo testpasses locallycargo dev update_lintscargo dev fmt