Min specialization improvements
- Don't allow specialization impls with no items, such implementations are probably not correct and only occur as mistakes in the compiler and standard library
- Fix a missing normalization call
- Adds spans for lifetime errors from overly general specializations
Closes#79457Closes#109815
Introduce `AliasKind::Inherent` for inherent associated types
Allows us to check (possibly generic) inherent associated types for well-formedness.
Type inference now also works properly.
Follow-up to #105961. Supersedes #108430.
Fixes#106722.
Fixes#108957.
Fixes#109768.
Fixes#109789.
Fixes#109790.
~Not to be merged before #108860 (`AliasKind::Weak`).~
CC `@jackh726`
r? `@compiler-errors`
`@rustbot` label T-types F-inherent_associated_types
Support return-type bounds on associated methods from supertraits
Support `T: Trait<method(): Bound>` when `method` comes from a supertrait, aligning it with the behavior of associated type bounds (both equality and trait bounds).
The only wrinkle is that I have to extend `super_predicates_that_define_assoc_type` to look for *all* items, not just `AssocKind::Ty`. This will also be needed to support `feature(associated_const_equality)` as well, which is subtly broken when it comes to supertraits, though this PR does not fix those yet. There's a slight chance there's a perf regression here, in which case I guess I could split it out into a separate query.
Use fulfillment to check `Drop` impl compatibility
Use an `ObligationCtxt` to ensure that a `Drop` impl does not have stricter requirements than the ADT that it's implemented for, rather than using a `SimpleEqRelation` to (more or less) syntactically equate predicates on an ADT with predicates on an impl.
r? types
### Some background
The old code reads:
```rust
// An earlier version of this code attempted to do this checking
// via the traits::fulfill machinery. However, it ran into trouble
// since the fulfill machinery merely turns outlives-predicates
// 'a:'b and T:'b into region inference constraints. It is simpler
// just to look for all the predicates directly.
```
I'm not sure what this means, but perhaps in the 8 years since that this comment was written (cc #23638) it's gotten easier to process region constraints after doing fulfillment? I don't know how this logic differs from anything we do in the `compare_impl_item` module. Ironically, later on it says:
```rust
// However, it may be more efficient in the future to batch
// the analysis together via the fulfill (see comment above regarding
// the usage of the fulfill machinery), rather than the
// repeated `.iter().any(..)` calls.
```
Also:
* Removes `SimpleEqRelation` which was far too syntactical in its relation.
* Fixes#110557
Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Add `ConstParamTy` trait
This is a bit sketch, but idk.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Yet to be done:
- [x] ~~Figure out if it's okay to implement `StructuralEq` for primitives / possibly remove their special casing~~ (it should be okay, but maybe not in this PR...)
- [ ] Maybe refactor the code a little bit
- [x] Use a macro to make impls a bit nicer
Future work:
- [ ] Actually™ use the trait when checking if a `const` generic type is allowed
- [ ] _Really_ refactor the surrounding code
- [ ] Refactor `marker.rs` into multiple modules for each "theme" of markers
Tweak await span to not contain dot
Fixes a discrepancy between method calls and await expressions where the latter are desugared to have a span that *contains* the dot (i.e. `.await`) but method call identifiers don't contain the dot. This leads to weird suggestions suggestions in borrowck -- see linked issue.
Fixes#110761
This mostly touches a bunch of tests to tighten their `await` span.
Clear response values for overflow in new solver
When we have an overflow, return a trivial query response. This fixes an ICE with the code described in #110544:
```rust
trait Trait {}
struct W<T>(T);
impl<T, U> Trait for W<(W<T>, W<U>)>
where
W<T>: Trait,
W<U>: Trait,
{}
fn impls<T: Trait>() {}
fn main() {
impls::<W<_>>()
}
```
Where, while proving `W<?0>: Trait`, we overflow but still apply the query response of `?0 = (W<?1>, W<?2>)`. Then while re-processing the query to validate that our evaluation result was stable, we get a different query response that looks like `?1 = (W<?3>, W<?4>), ?2 = (W<?5>, W<?6>)`, and so we trigger the ICE.
Also, by returning a trivial query response we also avoid the infinite-loop/OOM behavior of the old solver.
r? ``@lcnr``
Consider polarity in new solver
It's kinda ugly to have a polarity check in all of the builtin impls -- I guess I could consider the polarity at the top of assemble-builtin but that would require adding a polarity fn to `GoalKind`...
🤷 putting this up just so i dont forget, since it's needed to bootstrap core during coherence (this alone does not allow core to bootstrap though, additional work is needed!)
r? ``@lcnr``
Switch to `EarlyBinder` for `explicit_item_bounds`
Part of the work to finish https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105779.
This PR adds `EarlyBinder` to the return type of the `explicit_item_bounds` query and removes `bound_explicit_item_bounds`.
r? `@compiler-errors` (hope it's okay to request you, since you reviewed #110299 and #110498😃)
Break up long function in trait selection error reporting + clean up nearby code
- Move blocks of code into their own functions
- Replace a few function argument types with their type aliases
- Create "AppendConstMessage" enum to replace a nested `Option`.
