Remove `DebugWithInfcx` machinery
This PR removes `DebugWithInfcx` after having a lot of second thoughts about it due to recent type system uplifting work. We could add it back later if we want, but I don't think the amount of boilerplate in the complier and the existence of (kindof) hacks like `NoInfcx` currently justify the existence of `DebugWithInfcx`, especially since it's not even being used anywhere in the compiler currently.
The motivation for `DebugWithInfcx` is that we want to be able to print infcx-aware information, such as universe information[^1] (though if there are other usages that I'm overlooking, please let me know). I think there are probably more tailored solutions that can specifically be employed in places where this infcx-aware printing is necessary. For example, one way of achieving this is by implementing a custom `FmtPrinter` which overloads `ty_infer_name` (perhaps also extending it to have overrideable stubs for printing placeholders too) to print the `?u.i` name for an infer var. This will necessitate uplifting `Print` from `rustc_middle::ty::print`, but this seems a bit more extensible and reusable than `DebugWithInfcx`.
One of the problems w/ `DebugWithInfcx` is its opt-in-ness. Even if a compiler dev adds a new `debug!(ty)` in a context where there is an `infcx` we can access, they have to *opt-in* to using `DebugWithInfcx` with something like `debug!(infcx.with(ty))`. This feels to me like it risks a lot of boilerplate, and very easy to just forget adding it at all, especially in cases like `#[instrument]`.
A second problem is the `NoInfcx` type itself. It's necessary to have this dummy infcx implementation since we often want to print types outside of the scope of a valid `Infcx`. Right now, `NoInfcx` is only *partially* a valid implementation of `InferCtxtLike`, except for the methods that we specifically need for `DebugWithInfcx`. As I work on uplifting the trait solver, I actually want to add a lot more methods to `InferCtxtLike` and having to add `unreachable!("this should never be called")` stubs for uplifted methods like `next_ty_var` is quite annoying.
In reality, I actually only *really* care about the second problem -- we could, perhaps, instead just try to get rid of `NoInfcx` and just just duplicate `Debug` and `DebugWithInfcx` for most types. If we're okay with duplicating all these implementations (though most of them would just be trivial `#[derive(Debug, DebugWithInfcx)]`), I'd be okay with that too 🤔
r? `@BoxyUwU` `@lcnr` would like to know your thoughts -- happy to discuss this further, mainly trying to bring this problem up
[^1]: Which in my experience is only really necessary when we're debugging things like generalizer bugs.
interpret: ensure we check bool/char for validity when they are used in a cast
In general, `Scalar::to_bits` is a bit dangerous as it bypasses all type information. We should usually prefer matching on the type and acting according to that. So I also refactored `unary_op` handling of integers to do that. The remaining `to_bits` uses are operations that just fundamentally don't care about the sign (and only work on integers).
invalid_char_cast.rs is the key new test, the others already passed before this PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
Only compute `specializes` query if (min)specialization is enabled in the crate of the specializing impl
Fixes (after backport) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125197
### What
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122791 makes it so that inductive cycles are no longer hard errors. That means that when we are testing, for example, whether these impls overlap:
```rust
impl PartialEq<Self> for AnyId {
fn eq(&self, _: &Self) -> bool {
todo!()
}
}
impl<T: Identifier> PartialEq<T> for AnyId {
fn eq(&self, _: &T) -> bool {
todo!()
}
}
```
...given...
```rust
pub trait Identifier: Display + 'static {}
impl<T> Identifier for T where T: PartialEq + Display + 'static {}
```
Then we try to see if the second impl holds given `T = AnyId`. That requires `AnyId: Identifier`, which requires that `AnyId: PartialEq`, which is satisfied by these two impl candidates... The `PartialEq<T>` impl is a cycle, and we used to winnow it when we used to treat inductive cycles as errors.
However, now that we don't winnow it, this means that we *now* try calling `candidate_should_be_dropped_in_favor_of`, which tries to check whether one of the impls specializes the other: the `specializes` query. In that query, we currently bail early if the impl is local.
However, in a foreign crate, we try to compute if the two impls specialize each other by doing trait solving. This may itself lead to the same situation where we call `specializes`, which will lead to a query cycle.
### How does this fix the problem
We now record whether specialization is enabled in foreign crates, and extend this early-return behavior to foreign impls too. This means that we can only encounter these cycles if we truly have a specializing impl from a crate with specialization enabled.
-----
r? `@oli-obk` or `@lcnr`
offset_of: allow (unstably) taking the offset of slice tail fields
Fields of type `[T]` have a statically known offset, so there is no reason to forbid them in `offset_of!`. This PR adds the `offset_of_slice` feature to allow them.
I created a tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126151.
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Remove the `ty` field from type system `Const`s
Fixes#125556Fixes#122908
Part of the work on `adt_const_params`/`generic_const_param_types`/`min_generic_const_exprs`/generally making the compiler nicer. cc rust-lang/project-const-generics#44
Please review commit-by-commit otherwise I wasted a lot of time not just squashing this into a giant mess (and also it'll be SO much nicer because theres a lot of fluff changes mixed in with other more careful changes if looking via File Changes
---
Why do this?
- The `ty` field keeps causing ICEs and weird behaviour due to it either being treated as "part of the const" or it being forgotten about leading to ICEs.
- As we move forward with `adt_const_params` and a potential `min_generic_const_exprs` it's going to become more complex to actually lower the correct `Ty<'tcx>`
- It muddles the idea behind how we check `Const` arguments have the correct type. By having the `ty` field it may seem like we ought to be relating it when we relate two types, or that its generally important information about the `Const`.
- Brings the compiler more in line with `a-mir-formality` as that also tracks the type of type system `Const`s via `ConstArgHasType` bounds in the env instead of on the `Const` itself.
- A lot of stuff is a lot nicer when you dont have to pass around the type of a const lol. Everywhere we construct `Const` is now significantly nicer 😅
See #125671's description for some more information about the `ty` field
---
General summary of changes in this PR:
- Add `Ty` to `ConstKind::Value` as otherwise there is no way to implement `ConstArgHasType` to ensure that const arguments are correctly typed for the parameter when we stop creating anon consts for all const args. It's also just incredibly difficult/annoying to thread the correct `Ty` around to a bunch of ctfe functions otherwise.
- Fully implement `ConstArgHasType` in both the old and new solver. Since it now has no reliance on the `ty` field it serves its originally intended purpose of being able to act as a double check that trait vs impls have correctly typed const parameters. It also will now be able to be responsible for checking types of const arguments to parameters under `min_generic_const_exprs`.
- Add `Ty` to `mir::Const::Ty`. I dont have a great understanding of why mir constants are setup like this to be honest. Regardless they need to be able to determine the type of the const and the easiest way to make this happen was to simply store the `Ty` along side the `ty::Const`. Maybe we can do better here in the future but I'd have to spend way more time looking at everywhere we use `mir::Const`.
- rustdoc has its own `Const` which also has a `ty` field. It was relatively easy to remove this.
---
r? `@lcnr` `@compiler-errors`
Don't walk the bodies of free constants for reachability.
follow-up to #122371
cc #119214
This avoids codegening items (e.g. functions) that are only used during const eval, but do not reach their final constant value (e.g. via function pointers).
r? `@tmiasko`
Add intra-doc-links to rustc_middle crate-level docs.
Makes it slightly faster to find these modules, as you don't need to hunt for them in the big list.
Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude
(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Store the types of `ty::Expr` arguments in the `ty::Expr`
Part of #125958
In attempting to remove the `ty` field on `Const` it will become necessary to store the `Ty<'tcx>` inside of `Expr<'tcx>`. In order to do this without blowing up the size of `ConstKind`, we start storing the type/const args as `GenericArgs`
r? `@oli-obk`
Align `Term` methods with `GenericArg` methods, add `Term::expect_*`
* `Term::ty` -> `Term::as_type`.
* `Term::ct` -> `Term::as_const`.
* Adds `Term::expect_type` and `Term::expect_const`, and uses them in favor of `.ty().unwrap()`, etc.
I could also shorten these to `as_ty` and then do `GenericArg::as_ty` as well, but I do think the `as_` is important to signal that this is a conversion method, and not a getter, like `Const::ty` is.
r? types
Use parenthetical notation for `Fn` traits
Always use the `Fn(T) -> R` format when printing closure traits instead of `Fn<(T,), Output = R>`.
Address #67100:
```
error[E0277]: expected a `Fn()` closure, found `F`
--> file.rs:6:13
|
6 | call_fn(f)
| ------- ^ expected an `Fn()` closure, found `F`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: wrap the `F` in a closure with no arguments: `|| { /* code */ }`
note: required by a bound in `call_fn`
--> file.rs:1:15
|
1 | fn call_fn<F: Fn() -> ()>(f: &F) {
| ^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `call_fn`
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
5 | fn call_any<F: std::any::Any + Fn()>(f: &F) {
| ++++++
```
Uplift `{Closure,Coroutine,CoroutineClosure}Args` and friends to `rustc_type_ir`
Part of converting the new solver's `structural_traits.rs` to be interner-agnostic.
I decided against aliasing `ClosureArgs<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` to `ClosureArgs<'tcx>` because it seemed so rare. I could do so if desired, though.
r? lcnr
