Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change the category of manual_is_power_of_two to pedantic #13553

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 15, 2024
Merged

Change the category of manual_is_power_of_two to pedantic #13553

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions clippy_lints/src/manual_is_power_of_two.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,10 +11,12 @@ use rustc_session::declare_lint_pass;

declare_clippy_lint! {
/// ### What it does
/// Checks for expressions like `x.count_ones() == 1` or `x & (x - 1) == 0`, with x and unsigned integer, which are manual
/// Checks for expressions like `x.count_ones() == 1` or `x & (x - 1) == 0`, with x and unsigned integer, which may be manual
/// reimplementations of `x.is_power_of_two()`.
///
/// ### Why is this bad?
/// Manual reimplementations of `is_power_of_two` increase code complexity for little benefit.
///
/// ### Example
/// ```no_run
/// let a: u32 = 4;
Expand All @@ -27,7 +29,7 @@ declare_clippy_lint! {
/// ```
#[clippy::version = "1.82.0"]
pub MANUAL_IS_POWER_OF_TWO,
complexity,
pedantic,
"manually reimplementing `is_power_of_two`"
}

Expand Down