When a trait is not implemented for a type, but there *is* an `impl`
for another type or different trait params, we format the output to
use highlighting in the same way that E0308 does for types.
The logic accounts for 3 cases:
- When both the type and trait in the expected predicate and the candidate are different
- When only the types are different
- When only the trait generic params are different
For each case, we use slightly different formatting and wording.
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Compiler & its UI tests: Rename remaining occurrences of "object safe" to "dyn compatible"
Follow-up to #130826.
Part of #130852.
1. 1st commit: Fix stupid oversights. Should've been part of #130826.
2. 2nd commit: Rename the unstable feature `object_safe_for_dispatch` to `dyn_compatible_for_dispatch`. Might not be worth the churn, you decide.
3. 3rd commit: Apply the renaming to all UI tests (contents and paths).
Ban combination of GCE and new solver
These do not work together. I don't want anyone to have the impression that they do.
I reused the conflicting features diagnostic but I guess I could make it more tailored to the new solver? OTOH I don't really about the presentation of diagnostics here; these are nightly features after all.
r? `@BoxyUwU` thoughts on this?
Introduce `structurally_normalize_const`, use it in `rustc_hir_typeck`
Introduces `structurally_normalize_const` to typecking to separate the "eval a const" step from the "try to turn a valtree into a target usize" in HIR typeck, where we may still have infer vars and stuff around.
I also changed `check_expr_repeat` to move a double evaluation of a const into a single one. I'll leave inline comments.
r? ```@BoxyUwU```
I hesitated to really test this on the new solver where it probably matters for unevaluated consts. If you're worried about the side-effects, I'd be happy to craft some more tests 😄
Don't call `ty::Const::normalize` in error reporting
We do this to ensure that trait refs with unevaluated consts have those consts simplified to their evaluated forms. Instead, use `try_normalize_erasing_regions`.
**NOTE:** This has the side-effect of erasing regions from all of our trait refs. If this is too much to review or you think it's too opinionated of a diagnostics change, then I could split out the effective change (i.e. erasing regions from this impl suggestion) into another PR and have someone else review it.
Handle unsized consts with type `str` in v0 symbol mangling
This PR fixes#116303 by handling consts with type `str` in v0 symbol mangling as partial support for unsized consts.
This PR is related to `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` (#95174) and `#![feature(unsized_const_params)]` (#128028).
r? ``@BoxyUwU``
Correct outdated object size limit
The comment here about 48 bit addresses being enough was written in 2016 but was made incorrect in 2019 by 5-level paging, and then persisted for another 5 years before being noticed and corrected.
The bolding of the "exclusive" part is merely to call attention to something I missed when reading it and doublechecking the math.
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: test-various
The issue-112505-overflow test just extended a case of transmute-fail.rs
so simply put them in the same file.
Then we normalize away other cases of this.
...and remove the `const_arg_path` feature gate as a result. It was only
a stopgap measure to fix the regression that the new lowering introduced
(which should now be fixed by this PR).
As our implementation of MCP411 nears completion and we begin to
solicit testing, it's no longer reasonable to expect testers to
type or remember `BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`. The name degrades the
ease-of-reading of documentation, and the overall experience of
using compiler safe transmute.
Tentatively, we'll instead adopt `TransmuteFrom`.
This name seems to be the one most likely to be stabilized, after
discussion on Zulip [1]. We may want to revisit the ordering of
`Src` and `Dst` before stabilization, at which point we'd likely
consider `TransmuteInto` or `Transmute`.
[1] https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/216762-project-safe-transmute/topic/What.20should.20.60BikeshedIntrinsicFrom.60.20be.20named.3F
Retroactively feature gate `ConstArgKind::Path`
This puts the lowering introduced by #125915 under a feature gate until we fix the regressions introduced by it. Alternative to whole sale reverting the PR since it didn't seem like a very clean revert and I think this is generally a step in the right direction and don't want to get stuck landing and reverting the PR over and over :)
cc #129137 ``@camelid,`` tests taken from there. beta is branching soon so I think it makes sense to not try and rush that fix through since it wont have much time to bake and if it has issues we can't simply revert it on beta.
Fixes#128016
