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`
```
Accurately refer to assoc fn without receiver as assoc fn instead of methods.
Add `AssocItem::descr` method to centralize where we call methods and associated functions.
Split refining_impl_trait lint into _reachable, _internal variants
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119535#issuecomment-1909352040:
> We discussed this today in triage and developed a consensus to:
>
> * Add a separate lint against impls that refine a return type defined with RPITIT even when the trait is not crate public.
> * Place that in a lint group along with the analogous crate public lint.
> * Create an issue to solicit feedback on these lints (or perhaps two separate ones).
> * Have the warnings displayed with each lint reference this issue in a similar manner to how we do that today with the required `Self: '0'` bound on GATs.
> * Make a note to review this feedback on 2-3 release cycles.
This points users to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718 to leave feedback.
Make it so that async-fn-in-trait is compatible with a concrete future in implementation
There's no technical reason why an AFIT like `async fn foo()` cannot be satisfied with an implementation signature like `fn foo() -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = ()> + 'static>>`.
We rejected this previously because we were uncertain about how AFITs worked with refinement, but I don't believe this needs to be a restriction any longer.
r? oli-obk
Stop bailing out from compilation just because there were incoherent traits
fixes#120343
but also has a lot of "type annotations needed" fallout. Some are fixed in the second commit.
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Wrap coroutine variant fields in MaybeUninit to indicate that they
might be uninitialized. Otherwise an uninhabited field will make
the entire variant uninhabited and introduce undefined behaviour.
The analogous issue in the prefix of coroutine layout was addressed by
6fae7f8071.
Merge `impl_wf_inference` (`check_mod_impl_wf`) check into coherence checking
Problem here is that we call `collect_impl_trait_in_trait_types` when checking `check_mod_impl_wf` which is performed before coherence. Due to the `tcx.sess.track_errors`, since we end up reporting an error, we never actually proceed to coherence checking, where we would be emitting a more useful impl overlap error.
This change means that we may report more errors in some cases, but can at least proceed far enough to leave a useful message for overlapping traits with RPITITs in them.
Fixes#116982
r? types
Fix AFIT lint message to mention pitfall
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116184#issuecomment-1745194387 by adding a short note. Not sure exactly of the wording -- I don't think this should be a blocker for the stabilization PR since we can iterate on this lint's messaging in the next few weeks in the worst case.
r? `@tmandry` cc `@traviscross` `@jonhoo`
