Make `ObligationEmittingRelation`s emit `Goal` rather than `Obligation`
Helps avoid needing to uplift `Obligation` into the solver. We still can't get rid of `ObligationCause`, but we can keep it as an associated type for `InferCtxtLike` and just give it a `dummy` function.
There's some shuttling between `Goal` and `Obligation` that may be perf-sensitive... Let's see what rust-timer says.
r? lcnr
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`
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`
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124840 (resolve: mark it undetermined if single import is not has any bindings)
- #125622 (Winnow private method candidates instead of assuming any candidate of the right name will apply)
- #125648 (Remove unused(?) `~/rustsrc` folder from docker script)
- #125672 (Add more ABI test cases to miri (RFC 3391))
- #125800 (Fix `mut` static task queue in SGX target)
- #125871 (Orphanck[old solver]: Consider opaque types to never cover type parameters)
- #125893 (Handle all GVN binops in a single place.)
- #126008 (Port `tests/run-make-fulldeps/issue-19371` to ui-fulldeps)
- #126032 (Update description of the `IsTerminal` example)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Orphanck[old solver]: Consider opaque types to never cover type parameters
This fixes an oversight of mine in #117164. The change itself has already been FCP'ed.
This only affects the old solver, the next solver already correctly rejects the added test since #117164.
r? ``@lcnr``
Refactor `#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend]` support
This commit refactors the `#[do_not_recommend]` support in the old parser to also apply to projection errors and not only to selection errors. This allows the attribute to be used more widely.
Part of #51992
r? `@compiler-errors`
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
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
Make `WHERE_CLAUSES_OBJECT_SAFETY` a regular object safety violation
#### The issue
In #50781, we have known about unsound `where` clauses in function arguments:
```rust
trait Impossible {}
trait Foo {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible;
}
impl Foo for &() {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible,
{}
}
// `where` clause satisfied for the object, meaning that the function now *looks* callable.
impl Impossible for dyn Foo {}
fn main() {
let x: &dyn Foo = &&();
x.impossible();
}
```
... which currently segfaults at runtime because we try to call a method in the vtable that doesn't exist. :(
#### What did u change
This PR removes the `WHERE_CLAUSES_OBJECT_SAFETY` lint and instead makes it a regular object safety violation. I choose to make this into a hard error immediately rather than a `deny` because of the time that has passed since this lint was authored, and the single (1) regression (see below).
That means that it's OK to mention `where Self: Trait` where clauses in your trait, but making such a trait into a `dyn Trait` object will report an object safety violation just like `where Self: Sized`, etc.
```rust
trait Impossible {}
trait Foo {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible; // <~ This definition is valid, just not object-safe.
}
impl Foo for &() {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible,
{}
}
fn main() {
let x: &dyn Foo = &&(); // <~ THIS is where we emit an error.
}
```
#### Regressions
From a recent crater run, there's only one crate that relies on this behavior: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124305#issuecomment-2122381740. The crate looks unmaintained and there seems to be no dependents.
#### Further
We may later choose to relax this (e.g. when the where clause is implied by the supertraits of the trait or something), but this is not something I propose to do in this FCP.
For example, given:
```
trait Tr {
fn f(&self) where Self: Blanket;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> Blanket for T {}
```
Proving that some placeholder `S` implements `S: Blanket` would be sufficient to prove that the same (blanket) impl applies for both `Concerete: Blanket` and `dyn Trait: Blanket`.
Repeating here that I don't think we need to implement this behavior right now.
----
r? lcnr
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
Implement `needs_async_drop` in rustc and optimize async drop glue
This PR expands on #121801 and implements `Ty::needs_async_drop` which works almost exactly the same as `Ty::needs_drop`, which is needed for #123948.
Also made compiler's async drop code to look more like compiler's regular drop code, which enabled me to write an optimization where types which do not use `AsyncDrop` can simply forward async drop glue to `drop_in_place`. This made size of the async block from the [async_drop test](67980dd6fb/tests/ui/async-await/async-drop.rs) to decrease by 12%.
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
Do not equate `Const`'s ty in `super_combine_const`
Fixes#114456
In #125451 we started relating the `Const`'s tys outside of a probe so it was no longer simply an assertion to catch bugs.
This was done so that when we _do_ provide a wrongly typed const argument to an item if we wind up relating it with some other instantiation we'll have a `TypeError` we can bubble up and taint the resulting mir allowing const eval to skip evaluation.
In this PR I instead change `ConstArgHasType` to correctly handle checking the types of const inference variables. Previously if we had something like `impl<const N: u32> Trait for [(); N]`, when using the impl we would instantiate it with infer vars and then check that `?x: u32` is of type `u32` and succeed. Then later we would infer `?x` to some `Const` of type `usize`.
We now stall on `?x` in `ConstArgHasType` until it has a concrete value that we can determine the type of. This allows us to fail using the erroneous implementation of `Trait` which allows us to taint the mir.
Long term we intend to remove the `ty` field on `Const` so we would have no way of accessing the `ty` of a const inference variable anyway and would have to do this. I did not fully update `ConstArgHasType` to avoid using the `ty` field as it's not entirely possible right now- we would need to lookup `ConstArgHasType` candidates in the env.
---
As for _why_ I think we should do this, relating the types of const's is not necessary for soundness of the type system. Originally this check started off as a plain `==` in `super_relate_consts` and gradually has been growing in complexity as we support more complicated types. It was never actually required to ensure that const arguments are correctly typed for their parameters however.
The way we currently check that a const argument has the correct type is a little convoluted and confusing (and will hopefully be less weird as time goes on). Every const argument has an anon const with its return type set to type of the const parameter it is an argument to. When type checking the anon const regular type checking rules require that the expression is the same type as the return type. This effectively ensure that no matter what every const argument _always_ has the correct type.
An extra bit of complexity is that during `hir_ty_lowering` we do not represent everything as a `ConstKind::Unevaluated` corresponding to the anon const. For generic parameters i.e. `[(); N]` we simply represent them as `ConstKind::Param` as we do not want `ConstKind::Unevaluated` with generic substs on stable under min const generics. The anon const still gets type checked resulting in errors about type mismatches.
Eventually we intend to not create anon consts for all const arguments (for example for `ConstKind::Param`) and instead check that the argument type is correct via `ConstArgHasType` obligations (these effectively also act as a check that the anon consts have the correctly set return type).
What this all means is that the the only time we should ever have mismatched types when relating two `Const`s is if we have messed up our logic for ensuring that const arguments are of the correct type. Having this not be an assert is:
- Confusing as it may incorrectly lead people to believe this is an important check that is actually required
- Opens the possibility for bugs or behaviour reliant on this (unnecessary) check existing
---
This PR makes two tests go from pass->ICE (`generic_const_exprs/ice-125520-layout-mismatch-mulwithoverflow.rs` and `tests/crashes/121858.rs`). This is caused by the fact that we evaluate anon consts even if their where clauses do not hold and is a pre-existing issue and only affects `generic_const_exprs`. I am comfortable exposing the brokenness of `generic_const_exprs` more with this PR
This PR makes a test go from ICE->pass (`const-generics/issues/issue-105821.rs`). I have no idea why this PR affects that but I believe that ICE is an unrelated issue to do with the fact that under `generic_const_exprs`/`adt_const_params` we do not handle lifetimes in const parameter types correctly. This PR is likely just masking this bug.
Note: this PR doesn't re-introduce the assertion that the two consts' tys are equal. I'm not really sure how I feel about this but tbh it has caused more ICEs than its found lately so 🤷♀️
r? `@oli-obk` `@compiler-errors`
Always use the `Fn(T) -> R` format when printing closure traits instead of `Fn<(T,), Output = R>`.
Fix#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) {
| ++++++
```
This commit refactors the `#[do_not_recommend]` support in the old
parser to also apply to projection errors and not only to selection
errors. This allows the attribute to be used more widely.
