Regarding range_plus_one

Summary

This code:

#![warn(clippy::pedantic)]

fn foo(i: u32) {
    for i in 0 .. i + 1 {
        println!("{}", i);
    }
}

Gives:

warning: an inclusive range would be more readable
 --> src/main.rs:4:14
  |
4 |     for i in 0 .. i + 1 {
  |              ^^^^^^^^^^ help: use: `0..=i`
  |
note: the lint level is defined here
 --> src/main.rs:1:9
  |
1 | #![warn(clippy::pedantic)]
  |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  = note: `#[warn(clippy::range_plus_one)]` implied by `#[warn(clippy::pedantic)]`
  = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#range_plus_one

But ..= isn't performant, especially in inner loops. So for me this seems a bad warning.

Lint Name

No response

Reproducer

I tried this code:

<code>

I saw this happen:

<output>

I expected to see this happen:

Version

No response

Additional Labels

No response

Start by reproducing the range_plus_one warning with the Rust example in the issue, then inspect the lint's implementation and existing tests. Compare the generated range forms in the reported loop context and determine whether the lint should change; done means a maintainer-facing conclusion supported by benchmark or test evidence.