Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #119172 (Detect `NulInCStr` error earlier.)
- #119833 (Make tcx optional from StableMIR run macro and extend it to accept closures)
- #119967 (Add `PatKind::Err` to AST/HIR)
- #119978 (Move async closure parameters into the resultant closure's future eagerly)
- #120021 (don't store const var origins for known vars)
- #120038 (Don't create a separate "basename" when naming and opening a MIR dump file)
- #120057 (Don't ICE when deducing future output if other errors already occurred)
- #120073 (Remove spastorino from users_on_vacation)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
error on incorrect implied bounds in wfcheck except for Bevy dependents
Rebase of #109763
Additionally, special cases Bevy `ParamSet` types to not trigger the lint. This is tracked in #119956.
Fixes#109628
Don't ICE when deducing future output if other errors already occurred
The situation can't really happen outside of erroneous code. What was interesting is that it ICEd before emitting any other diagnostics. This was because the other errors were silenced due to cycle_delay_bug cycle errors.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
fixes#119890
Move async closure parameters into the resultant closure's future eagerly
Move async closure parameters into the closure's resultant future eagerly.
Before, we used to desugar `async |p1, p2, ..| { body }` as `|p1, p2, ..| { || async { body } }`. Now, we desugar the above like `|p1, p2, ..| { async move { let p1 = p1; let p2 = p2; ... body } }`. This mirrors the same desugaring that `async fn` does with its parameter types, and the compiler literally uses the same code via a shared helper function.
This removes the necessity for E0708, since now expressions like `async |x: i32| { x }` will not give you confusing borrow errors.
This does *not* fix the case where async closures have self-borrows. This will come with a general implementation of async closures, which is still in the works.
r? oli-obk
Detect `NulInCStr` error earlier.
By making it an `EscapeError` instead of a `LitError`. This makes it like the other errors produced when checking string literals contents, e.g. for invalid escape sequences or bare CR chars.
NOTE: this means these errors are issued earlier, before expansion, which changes behaviour. It will be possible to move the check back to the later point if desired. If that happens, it's likely that all the string literal contents checks will be delayed together.
One nice thing about this: the old approach had some code in `report_lit_error` to calculate the span of the nul char from a range. This code used a hardwired `+2` to account for the `c"` at the start of a C string literal, but this should have changed to a `+3` for raw C string literals to account for the `cr"`, which meant that the caret in `cr"` nul error messages was one short of where it should have been. The new approach doesn't need any of this and avoids the off-by-one error.
r? ```@fee1-dead```
Construct closure type eagerly
Construct the returned closure type *before* checking the body, in the same match as we were previously deducing the coroutine types based off of the closure kind.
This simplifies some changes I'm doing in the async closure PR, and imo just seems easier to read (since we only need one match on closure kind, instead of two). There's no reason I can tell that we needed to create the closure type *after* the body was checked.
~~This also has the side-effect of making it so that the universe of the closure synthetic infer vars are lower than any infer vars that come from checking the body. We can also get rid of `next_root_ty_var` hack from closure checking (though in general we still need this, #119106). cc ```@lcnr``` since you may care about this hack 😆~~
r? ```@oli-obk```
Gracefully handle missing typeck information if typeck errored
fixes#116893
I created some logs and the typeck of `fn main` is exactly the same, no matter whether the constant's body is what it is, or if it is replaced with `panic!()`. The latter will cause the ICE not to be emitted though. The reason for that is that we abort compilation if *errors* were emitted, but not if *lint errors* were emitted. This took me way too long to debug, and is another reason why I would have liked https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/633
Don't ICE if TAIT-defining fn contains a closure with `_` in return type
The `delay_span_bug` got added in 0e82aaeb67 to reduce the amount of errors emitted for functions that have `_` in their return type, because inference doesn't apply to function items. But this logic shouldn't apply to closures, because their return types *can* be inferred.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119916.
Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg
This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).
### Context
Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.
This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.
To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
- `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
- and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared
This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.
See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](92395d9010/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs (L1263-L1281)) for more details.
### De-specializing *empty* `values()`
To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.
> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.
Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.
A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:
| Syntax | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]` |
| `cfg(name, values())` | `&[]` |
Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/13011.
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`
fix fn/const items implied bounds and wf check (rebase)
A rebase of #104098, see that PR for discussion. This is pretty much entirely the work of `@aliemjay.` I received his permission for this rebase.
---
These are two distinct changes (edit: actually three, see below):
1. Wf-check all fn item args. This is a soundness fix.
Fixes#104005
2. Use implied bounds from impl header in borrowck of associated functions/consts. This strictly accepts more code and helps to mitigate the impact of other breaking changes.
Fixes#98852Fixes#102611
The first is a breaking change and will likely have a big impact without the the second one. See the first commit for how it breaks libstd.
Landing the second one without the first will allow more incorrect code to pass. For example an exploit of #104005 would be as simple as:
```rust
use core::fmt::Display;
trait ExtendLt<Witness> {
fn extend(self) -> Box<dyn Display>;
}
impl<T: Display> ExtendLt<&'static T> for T {
fn extend(self) -> Box<dyn Display> {
Box::new(self)
}
}
fn main() {
let val = (&String::new()).extend();
println!("{val}");
}
```
The third change is to to check WF of user type annotations before normalizing them (fixes#104764, fixes#104763). It is mutually dependent on the second change above: an attempt to land it separately in #104746 caused several crater regressions that can all be mitigated by using the implied from the impl header. It is also necessary for the soundness of associated consts that use the implied bounds of impl header. See #104763 and how the third commit fixes the soundness issue in `tests/ui/wf/wf-associated-const.rs` that was introduces by the previous commit.
r? types
Make sure to instantiate placeholders correctly in old solver
When creating the query substitution guess for an input placeholder type like `!1_T` (in universe 1), we were guessing the response substitution with something like `!0_T`. This failed to unify with `!1_T`, causing an ICE.
This PR reworks the query substitution guess code to work a bit more like the new solver. I'm *pretty* sure this is correct, though I'd really appreciate some scrutiny from someone (*cough* lcnr) who knows a bit more about query instantiation :)
Fixes#119941
r? lcnr
never patterns: Check bindings wrt never patterns
Never patterns:
- Shouldn't contain bindings since they never match anything;
- Don't count when checking that or-patterns have consistent bindings.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Fix `allow_internal_unstable` for `(min_)specialization`
Fixes#119950
Blocked on #119949 (comment doesn't make sense until that merges)
I'd like to follow this up and look for more instances of not properly checking spans for features but I wanted to fix the motivating issue.
Silence some follow-up errors [3/x]
this is one piece of the requested cleanups from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117449
Keep error types around, even in obligations.
These help silence follow-up errors, as we now figure out that some types (most notably inference variables) are equal to an error type.
But it also allows figuring out more types in the presence of errors, possibly causing more errors.
Don't ICE when noting GAT bounds in `report_no_match_method_error`
We can encounter `BindingObligation`s from GATs that we should handle in `report_no_match_method_error`. I assume we can encounter them from methods, though I didn't really feel like wasting my time creating a repro.
Fixes#119942
Make `InferCtxtExt::could_impl_trait` more precise, less ICEy
The implementation for `InferCtxtExt::could_impl_trait` was very wrong. Along with being pretty poorly named, way too specific to ADTs, it was also doing impl substitution wrong -- this caused an ICE (#119915).
This PR generalizes that code, gives it a clearer name, makes it stop using the new trait solver (lol), and fixes some fallout bad suggestions that are made worse with the code fix.
Fixes#119915
store the segment name when resolution fails
Fixes#112672
The `find_cfg_stripped` does indeed get executed within `smart_resolve_report_errors`. However, this error is not reported as it is subsequently overridden by `parent_err`. (See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late.rs#L3760)
This PR changes `last_segment` to `segment`, which stores the name of the failed resolution, and ensures that the result of `find_cfg_stripped` is also included in `parent_err`.
r? ```@Nilstrieb```
Suggest Upgrading Compiler for Gated Features
This PR addresses #117318
I have a few questions:
1. Do we want to specify the current version and release date of the compiler? I have added this in via environment variables, which I found in the code for the rustc cli where it handles the `--version` flag
a. How can I handle the changing message in the tests?
3. Do we want to only show this message when the compiler is old?
a. How can we determine when the compiler is old?
I'll wait until we figure out the message to bless the tests
Taint `_` placeholder types in trait impl method signatures
We report an error right below for them, but that kind of broken type can cause subsequent ICEs.
fixes#119867
Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again
This follows from [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits/topic/projections.20on.20.28~.29const.20Trait.20.26.20.28~.29const.20assoc.20ty.20bounds).
Basically in my opinion, it makes sense to allow `~const` on associated type bounds again since they're quite useful even though we haven't implemented the proposed syntax `<Ty as ~const Trait>::Proj`/`<Ty as const Trait>::Proj` yet; that can happen as a follow-up.
This already allows more code to compile since `T::Assoc` where `T` is a type parameter and where the predicate `<T as ~const Trait>` is in the environment gets elaborated to (pseudo) `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`.
```rs
#[const_trait]
trait Trait {
type Assoc: ~const Trait;
fn func() -> i32;
}
const fn function<T: ~const Trait>() -> i32 {
T::Assoc::func()
}
```
`~const` associated type bounds also work together with `const` bounds:
```rs
struct Type<const N: i32>;
fn procedure<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::Assoc::func() }> { // `Trait` comes from above
Type
}
```
NB: This PR also starts allowing `~const` bounds in the generics and the where-clause of trait associated types since it's trivial to support them. However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful. Maybe we should continue to reject them?
For reference, it wouldn't make any sense to allow `~const Trait` in GACs (generic associated constants, `generic_const_items`) because they'd be absolutely useless (contrary to `const Trait`).
~~[``@]rustbot`` ping project-const-traits~~
r? project-const-traits
