rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
Ensure that THIR unsafety check is done before stealing it
This ensures that THIR unsafety check is done before stealing it by running it on the typeck root instead of on a closure, which does nothing.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111520
Point at return type when it influences non-first `match` arm
When encountering code like
```rust
fn foo() -> i32 {
match 0 {
1 => return 0,
2 => "",
_ => 1,
}
}
```
Point at the return type and not at the prior arm, as that arm has type `!` which isn't influencing the arm corresponding to arm `2`.
Fix#78124.
Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
Make `unconditional_recursion` warning detect recursive drops
Closes#55388
Also closes#50049 unless we want to keep it for the second example which this PR does not solve, but I think it is better to track that work in #57965.
r? `@oli-obk` since you are the mentor for #55388
Unresolved questions:
- [x] There are two false positives that must be fixed before merging (see diff). I suspect the best way to solve them is to perform analysis after drop elaboration instead of before, as now, but I have not explored that any further yet. Could that be an option? **Answer:** Yes, that solved the problem.
`@rustbot` label +T-compiler +C-enhancement +A-lint
Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
Perform OpaqueCast field projection on HIR, too.
fixes#105819
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99806 for when and why we added OpaqueCast to MIR.
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
