Enable unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn and missing_unsafe_on_extern lints
#5557
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
f02719a to
de88525
Compare
de88525 to
92e02a7
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These will be enabled by default in rust2024, and they make more clear what is actually unsafe. I didn't add safety comments for the new unsafe blocks required by
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn(except where obvious that requirements are simply forwarded from the caller), but we have plenty of unsafe blocks with no safety comments anyway. As I was adding the new unsafe blocks, I noticed it would make more sense and make the new code clearer ifPyObjectRef::{from,into}_raw()took/returnedNonNullinstead of raw pointers, so I made that change in its own commit.