2018-03-13 11:38:11 +01:00
|
|
|
use consts::{constant_simple, Constant};
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
use rustc::lint::*;
|
2016-04-07 17:46:48 +02:00
|
|
|
use rustc::hir::*;
|
2015-11-17 06:22:57 +01:00
|
|
|
use utils::span_help_and_lint;
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-06 09:55:04 +02:00
|
|
|
/// **What it does:** Checks for `0.0 / 0.0`.
|
2015-12-11 01:22:27 +01:00
|
|
|
///
|
2017-08-09 09:30:56 +02:00
|
|
|
/// **Why is this bad?** It's less readable than `std::f32::NAN` or
|
|
|
|
/// `std::f64::NAN`.
|
2015-12-11 01:22:27 +01:00
|
|
|
///
|
2016-08-06 09:55:04 +02:00
|
|
|
/// **Known problems:** None.
|
2015-12-11 01:22:27 +01:00
|
|
|
///
|
2016-08-06 09:55:04 +02:00
|
|
|
/// **Example:**
|
2016-07-16 00:25:44 +02:00
|
|
|
/// ```rust
|
|
|
|
/// 0.0f32 / 0.0
|
|
|
|
/// ```
|
2018-03-28 15:24:26 +02:00
|
|
|
declare_clippy_lint! {
|
2016-02-06 00:13:29 +01:00
|
|
|
pub ZERO_DIVIDED_BY_ZERO,
|
2018-03-28 15:24:26 +02:00
|
|
|
complexity,
|
2016-02-06 00:13:29 +01:00
|
|
|
"usage of `0.0 / 0.0` to obtain NaN instead of std::f32::NaN or std::f64::NaN"
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-06 09:55:04 +02:00
|
|
|
pub struct Pass;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-10 16:17:20 +02:00
|
|
|
impl LintPass for Pass {
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
fn get_lints(&self) -> LintArray {
|
|
|
|
lint_array!(ZERO_DIVIDED_BY_ZERO)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-07 13:13:40 +01:00
|
|
|
impl<'a, 'tcx> LateLintPass<'a, 'tcx> for Pass {
|
|
|
|
fn check_expr(&mut self, cx: &LateContext<'a, 'tcx>, expr: &'tcx Expr) {
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
// check for instances of 0.0/0.0
|
2017-10-23 21:18:02 +02:00
|
|
|
if_chain! {
|
|
|
|
if let ExprBinary(ref op, ref left, ref right) = expr.node;
|
|
|
|
if let BinOp_::BiDiv = op.node;
|
2016-06-06 02:09:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// TODO - constant_simple does not fold many operations involving floats.
|
|
|
|
// That's probably fine for this lint - it's pretty unlikely that someone would
|
|
|
|
// do something like 0.0/(2.0 - 2.0), but it would be nice to warn on that case too.
|
2018-03-13 11:38:11 +01:00
|
|
|
if let Some(lhs_value) = constant_simple(cx, left);
|
|
|
|
if let Some(rhs_value) = constant_simple(cx, right);
|
|
|
|
if Constant::F32(0.0) == lhs_value || Constant::F64(0.0) == lhs_value;
|
|
|
|
if Constant::F32(0.0) == rhs_value || Constant::F64(0.0) == rhs_value;
|
2017-10-23 21:18:02 +02:00
|
|
|
then {
|
|
|
|
// since we're about to suggest a use of std::f32::NaN or std::f64::NaN,
|
|
|
|
// match the precision of the literals that are given.
|
2018-03-13 11:38:11 +01:00
|
|
|
let float_type = match (lhs_value, rhs_value) {
|
|
|
|
(Constant::F64(_), _)
|
|
|
|
| (_, Constant::F64(_)) => "f64",
|
2017-10-23 21:18:02 +02:00
|
|
|
_ => "f32"
|
|
|
|
};
|
2017-11-04 20:56:05 +01:00
|
|
|
span_help_and_lint(
|
|
|
|
cx,
|
|
|
|
ZERO_DIVIDED_BY_ZERO,
|
|
|
|
expr.span,
|
2017-10-23 21:18:02 +02:00
|
|
|
"constant division of 0.0 with 0.0 will always result in NaN",
|
2017-11-04 20:56:05 +01:00
|
|
|
&format!(
|
|
|
|
"Consider using `std::{}::NAN` if you would like a constant representing NaN",
|
|
|
|
float_type,
|
|
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
);
|
2017-10-23 21:18:02 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-10-12 04:22:13 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|