Only shown relevant type params in E0283 label
When we point at a binding to suggest giving it a type, erase all the
type for ADTs that have been resolved, leaving only the ones that could
not be inferred. For small shallow types this is not a problem, but for
big nested types with lots of params, this can otherwise cause a lot of
unnecessary visual output.
Remove a dead code path.
It is neither documented nor can I see any way it could ever be reached.
Also, no tests fail when turning that arm into an ICE
When we point at a binding to suggest giving it a type, erase all the
type for ADTs that have been resolved, leaving only the ones that could
not be inferred. For small shallow types this is not a problem, but for
big nested types with lots of params, this can otherwise cause a lot of
unnecessary visual output.
Cleanup: Eliminate ConstnessAnd
This is almost a behaviour-free change and purely a refactoring. "almost" because we appear to be using the wrong ParamEnv somewhere already, and this is now exposed by failing a test using the unstable `~const` feature.
We most definitely need to review all `without_const` and at some point should probably get rid of many of them by using `TraitPredicate` instead of `TraitRef`.
This is a continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90274.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@spastorino` `@ecstatic-morse`
Make `TypeFolder::fold_*` return `Result`
Implements rust-lang/compiler-team#432.
Initially this is just a rebase of `@LeSeulArtichaut's` work in #85469 (abandoned; see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/85485#issuecomment-908781112). At that time, it caused a regression in performance that required some further exploration... with this rebased PR bors can hopefully report some perf analysis from which we can investigate further (if the regression is indeed still present).
r? `@jackh726` cc `@nikomatsakis`
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #91008 (Adds IEEE 754-2019 minimun and maximum functions for f32/f64)
- #91070 (Make `LLVMRustGetOrInsertGlobal` always return a `GlobalVariable`)
- #91097 (Add spaces in opaque `impl Trait` with more than one trait)
- #91098 (Don't suggest certain fixups (`.field`, `.await`, etc) when reporting errors while matching on arrays )
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Point at source of trait bound obligations in more places
Be more thorough in using `ItemObligation` and `BindingObligation` when
evaluating obligations so that we can point at trait bounds that
introduced unfulfilled obligations. We no longer incorrectly point at
unrelated trait bounds (`substs-ppaux.verbose.stderr`).
In particular, we now point at trait bounds on method calls.
We no longer point at "obvious" obligation sources (we no longer have a
note pointing at `Trait` saying "required by a bound in `Trait`", like
in `associated-types-no-suitable-supertrait*`).
We no longer point at associated items (`ImplObligation`), as they didn't
add any user actionable information, they just added noise.
Address part of #89418.
Be more thorough in using `ItemObligation` and `BindingObligation` when
evaluating obligations so that we can point at trait bounds that
introduced unfulfilled obligations. We no longer incorrectly point at
unrelated trait bounds (`substs-ppaux.verbose.stderr`).
In particular, we now point at trait bounds on method calls.
We no longer point at "obvious" obligation sources (we no longer have a
note pointing at `Trait` saying "required by a bound in `Trait`", like
in `associated-types-no-suitable-supertrait*`).
Address part of #89418.
Fix span for non-satisfied trivial trait bounds
The spans for "trait bound not satisfied" errors in trivial trait bounds referenced the entire item (fn, impl, struct) before.
Now they only reference the obligation itself (`String: Copy`)
Address #90869
Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected
Makes progress towards https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90600
The diagnostics here were previously entirely removed due to giving a misleading suggestion but if we instead provide an informative label in that same location it should better help the user understand the situation.
I included the example from the issue as it demonstrates an area where the diagnostics are still lacking.
Happy to remove that if its just adding noise atm.
The spans for "trait bound not satisfied" errors in trivial trait bounds referenced the entire item (fn, impl, struct) before.
Now they only reference the obligation itself (`String: Copy`)
Address #90869
Type inference for inline consts
Fixes#78132Fixes#78174Fixes#81857Fixes#89964
Perform type checking/inference of inline consts in the same context as the outer def, similar to what is currently done to closure.
Doing so would require `closure_base_def_id` of the inline const to return the outer def, and since `closure_base_def_id` can be called on non-local crate (and thus have no HIR available), a new `DefKind` is created for inline consts.
The type of the generated anon const can capture lifetime of outer def, so we couldn't just use the typeck result as the type of the inline const's def. Closure has a similar issue, and it uses extra type params `CK, CS, U` to capture closure kind, input/output signature and upvars. I use a similar approach for inline consts, letting it have an extra type param `R`, and then `typeof(InlineConst<[paremt generics], R>)` would just be `R`. In borrowck region requirements are also propagated to the outer MIR body just like it's currently done for closure.
With this PR, inline consts in expression position are quitely usable now; however the usage in pattern position is still incomplete -- since those does not remain in the MIR borrowck couldn't verify the lifetime there. I have left an ignored test as a FIXME.
Some disucssions can be found on [this Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/inline.20consts.20typeck).
cc `````@spastorino````` `````@lcnr`````
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
`````@rustbot````` label A-inference F-inline_const T-compiler
Implementation of GATs outlives lint
See #87479 for background. Closes#87479
The basic premise of this lint/error is to require the user to write where clauses on a GAT when those bounds can be implied or proven from any function on the trait returning that GAT.
## Intuitive Explanation (Attempt) ##
Let's take this trait definition as an example:
```rust
trait Iterable {
type Item<'x>;
fn iter<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::Item<'a>;
}
```
Let's focus on the `iter` function. The first thing to realize is that we know that `Self: 'a` because of `&'a self`. If an impl wants `Self::Item` to contain any data with references, then those references must be derived from `&'a self`. Thus, they must live only as long as `'a`. Furthermore, because of the `Self: 'a` implied bound, they must live only as long as `Self`. Since it's `'a` is used in place of `'x`, it is reasonable to assume that any value of `Self::Item<'x>`, and thus `'x`, will only be able to live as long as `Self`. Therefore, we require this bound on `Item` in the trait.
As another example:
```rust
trait Deserializer<T> {
type Out<'x>;
fn deserialize<'a>(&self, input: &'a T) -> Self::Out<'a>;
}
```
The intuition is similar here, except rather than a `Self: 'a` implied bound, we have a `T: 'a` implied bound. Thus, the data on `Self::Out<'a>` is derived from `&'a T`, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the lifetime `'x` will always be less than `T`.
## Implementation Algorithm ##
* Given a GAT `<P0 as Trait<P1..Pi>>::G<Pi...Pn>` declared as `trait T<A1..Ai> for A0 { type G<Ai...An>; }` used in return type of one associated function `F`
* Given env `E` (including implied bounds) for `F`
* For each lifetime parameter `'a` in `P0...Pn`:
* For each other type parameter `Pi != 'a` in `P0...Pn`: // FIXME: this include of lifetime parameters too
* If `E => (P: 'a)`:
* Require where clause `Ai: 'a`
## Follow-up questions ##
* What should we do when we don't pass params exactly?
For this example:
```rust
trait Des {
type Out<'x, D>;
fn des<'z, T>(&self, data: &'z Wrap<T>) -> Self::Out<'z, Wrap<T>>;
}
```
Should we be requiring a `D: 'x` clause? We pass `Wrap<T>` as `D` and `'z` as `'x`, and should be able to prove that `Wrap<T>: 'z`.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Suggest adding a new lifetime parameter when two elided lifetimes should match up but don't
Issue #90170
This also changes the tests introduced by the previous commits because of another rustc issue (#90258)
