repr(transparent): it's fine if the one non-1-ZST field is a ZST
This code currently gets rejected:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct MyType([u16; 0])
```
That clearly seems like a bug to me: `repr(transparent)` [got defined ](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77841#issuecomment-716575747) as having any number of 1-ZST fields plus optionally one more field; `MyType` clearly satisfies that definition.
This PR changes the `repr(transparent)` logic to actually match that definition.
Improve invalid let expression handling
- Move all of the checks for valid let expression positions to parsing.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location.
- Suppress some later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
- Fix a (drop) scope issue that was also responsible for #104172.
Fixes#104172Fixes#104868
interpret: change ABI-compat test to be type-based
This makes the test consistent across targets. Otherwise the chances are very high that ABI mismatches get accepted on x86_64 but still fail on many other targets with more complicated ABIs.
This implements (most of) the rules described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115476.
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Add `FreezeLock` type and use it to store `Definitions`
This adds a `FreezeLock` type which allows mutation using a lock until the value is frozen where it can be accessed lock-free. It's used to store `Definitions` in `Untracked` instead of a `RwLock`. Unlike the current scheme of leaking read guards this doesn't deadlock if definitions is written to after no mutation are expected.
Permit recursive weak type aliases
I saw #63097 and thought "we can do ~~better~~ funnier". So here it is. It's not useful, but it's certainly something. This may actually become feasible with lazy norm (so in 5 years (constant, not reducing over time)).
r? `@estebank`
cc `@GuillaumeGomez`
Don't add associated type bound for non-types
We had this fix for equality constraints (#99890), but for some reason not trait constraints 😅Fixes#114744
fixed *const [type error] does not implement the Copy trait
Removes "error: arguments for inline assembly must be copyable" when moving an unknown type
Fixes: #113788
Select obligations before processing wf obligation in `compare_method_predicate_entailment`
We need to select obligations before processing the WF obligation for the `IMPLIED_BOUNDS_ENTAILMENT` lint, since it skips over type variables.
Fixes#114783
r? `@jackh726`
Map RPIT duplicated lifetimes back to fn captured lifetimes
Use the [`lifetime_mapping`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_hir/hir/struct.OpaqueTy.html#structfield.lifetime_mapping) to map an RPIT's captured lifetimes back to the early- or late-bound lifetimes from its parent function. We may be going thru several layers of mapping, since opaques can be nested, so we introduce `TyCtxt::map_rpit_lifetime_to_fn_lifetime` to loop through several opaques worth of mapping, and handle turning it into a `ty::Region` as well.
We can then use this instead of the identity substs for RPITs in `check_opaque_meets_bounds` to address #114285.
We can then also use `map_rpit_lifetime_to_fn_lifetime` to properly install bidirectional-outlives predicates for both RPITs and RPITITs. This addresses #114601.
I based this on #114574, but I don't actually know how much of that PR we still need, so some code may be redundant now... 🤷
---
Fixes#114597Fixes#114579Fixes#114285
Also fixes#114601, since it turns out we had other bugs with RPITITs and their duplicated lifetime params 😅.
Supersedes #114574
r? `@oli-obk`
Structurally normalize weak and inherent in new solver
It seems pretty obvious to me that we should be normalizing weak and inherent aliases too, since they can always be normalized. This PR still leaves open the question of what to do with opaques, though 💀
**Also**, we need to structurally resolve the target of a coercion, for the UI test to work.
r? `@lcnr`
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`
Don't check unnecessarily that impl trait is RPIT
We have this random `return_type_impl_trait` function to detect if a function returns an RPIT which is used in outlives suggestions, but removing it doesn't actually change any diagnostics. Let's just remove it.
Also, suppress a spurious outlives error from a ReError.
Fixes#114274
Map RPITIT's opaque type bounds back from projections to opaques
An RPITIT in a program's AST is eventually translated into both a projection GAT and an opaque. The opaque is used for default trait methods, like:
```
trait Foo {
fn bar() -> impl Sized { 0i32 }
}
```
The item bounds for both the projection and opaque are identical, and both have a *projection* self ty. This is mostly okay, since we can normalize this projection within the default trait method body to the opaque, but it does two things:
1. it leads to bugs in places where we don't normalize item bounds, like `deduce_future_output_from_obligations`
2. it leads to extra match arms that are both suspicious looking and also easy to miss
This PR maps the opaque type bounds of the RPITIT's *opaque* back to the opaque's self type to avoid this quirk. Then we can fix the UI test for #108304 (1.) and also remove a bunch of match arms (2.).
Fixes#108304
r? `@spastorino`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114099 (privacy: no nominal visibility for assoc fns )
- #114128 (When flushing delayed span bugs, write to the ICE dump file even if it doesn't exist)
- #114138 (Adjust spans correctly for fn -> method suggestion)
- #114146 (Skip reporting item name when checking RPITIT GAT's associated type bounds hold)
- #114147 (Insert RPITITs that were shadowed by missing ADTs that resolve to [type error])
- #114155 (Replace a lazy `RefCell<Option<T>>` with `OnceCell<T>`)
- #114164 (Add regression test for `--cap-lints allow` and trait bounds warning)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Double check that hidden types match the expected hidden type
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113278 specifically, but I left a TODO for where we should also add some hardening.
It feels a bit like papering over the issue, but at least this way we don't get unsoundness, but just surprising errors. Errors will be improved and given spans before this PR lands.
r? `@compiler-errors` `@lcnr`
Remove Scope::Elision from bound-vars resolution.
This scope is a remnant of HIR-based lifetime resolution.
It's only role was to ensure that object lifetime resolution falled back to `'static`. This can be done using `ObjectLifetimeDefault` scope.
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
| ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
Querify unused trait check.
This code transitively loads information for all bodies, and from resolutions. As it does not return a value, it should be beneficial to have it as a query.
Properly document `lifetime_mapping` in `OpaqueTy`
Also use an `Option` to signify that the value is actually present, instead of just no captured lifetimes.
Make it clearer that we're just checking for an RPITIT
Tiny nit to use `is_impl_trait_in_trait` more, to make it clearer that we're just checking whether a def-id is an RPITIT, rather than doing something meaningful with the `opt_rpitit_info`.
r? `@spastorino`
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #113413 (Add needs-triage to all new issues)
- #113426 (Don't ICE in `resolve_bound_vars` when associated return-type bounds are in bad positions)
- #113427 (Remove `variances_of` on RPITIT GATs, remove its one use-case)
- #113441 (miri: check that assignments do not self-overlap)
- #113453 (Remove unused from_method from rustc_on_unimplemented)
- #113456 (Avoid calling report_forbidden_specialization for RPITITs)
- #113466 (Update cargo)
- #113467 (Fix comment of `fn_can_unwind`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove `variances_of` on RPITIT GATs, remove its one use-case
It doesn't make sense to implement variances on a GAT anyways, since we don't relate GATs with variance:
85bf07972a/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/relate.rs (L569-L579)
r? ``@spastorino``
Effects/keyword generics MVP
This adds `feature(effects)`, which adds `const host: bool` to the generics of const functions, const traits and const impls. This will be used to replace the current logic around const traits.
r? `@oli-obk`
Remove chalk support from the compiler
Removes chalk (`-Ztrait-solver=chalk`) from the compiler and prunes any dead code resulting from this, mainly:
* Remove the chalk compatibility layer in `compiler/rustc_traits/src/chalk`
* Remove the chalk flag `-Ztrait-solver=chalk` and its `TraitEngine` implementation
* Remove `TypeWellFormedFromEnv` (and its many `bug!()` match arms)
* Remove the chalk migration mode from compiletest
* Remove the `chalkify` UI tests (do we want to keep any of these, but migrate them to `-Ztrait-solver=next`??)
Fulfills rust-lang/types-team#93.
r? `@jackh726`
Make RPITITs assume/require their parent method's predicates
Removes a FIXME from the `param_env` query where we were manually adding the parent function's predicates to the RPITIT's assumptions.
r? `@spastorino`
Error when RPITITs' hidden types capture more lifetimes than their trait definitions
This implements a stricter set of captures rules for RPITITs. They now may only capture:
1. Lifetimes from the impl header (both the self type and any trait substs -- we may want to restrict just to the self type's lifetimes, but the PR makes that easy to do, too)
2. Lifetimes mentioned by the `impl Trait` in the trait method's definition.
Namely, they may not mention lifetimes from the method (early or late) that are not mentioned in the `impl Trait`.
cc #105258 which I think was trying to do this too, though I'm not super familiar with what exactly differs from that or why that one was broken.
cc #112194 (doesn't fix this issue per se, because it's still an open question, but I think this is objectively better than the status quo, and gets us closer to resolving that issue.)
Technically is a fix for the ICE in #108580, but it turns that issue into an error now. We can decide separately whether or not nested RPITITs should capture lifetimes from their parents.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Account for late-bound vars from parent arg-position impl trait
We should be reporting an error like we do for late-bound args coming from a parent APIT.
Fixes#113016
Make associated type bounds in supertrait position implied
`trait A: B<Assoc: C> {}` should be able to imply both `Self: B` and `<Self as B>::Assoc: C`. Adjust the way that we collect implied predicates to do so.
Fixes#112573Fixes#112568
Validate fluent variable references in tests
Closes#101109
Under `cfg(test)`, the `fluent_messages` macro will emit a list of variables referenced by each message and its attributes. The derive attribute will now emit a `#[test]` that checks that each referenced variable exists in the structure it's applied to.
Fix return type notation associated type suggestion when -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty
This avoid suggesting the associated types generated for RPITITs when the one the code refers to doesn't exist and rustc looks for a suggestion.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Fix return type notation errors with -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty
This just adjust the way we check for RPITITs and uses the new helper method to do the "old" and "new" check at once.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Various impl trait in assoc tys cleanups
r? `@compiler-errors`
All commits except for the last are pure refactorings. 274dab5bd658c97886a8987340bf50ae57900c39 allows struct fields to participate in deciding whether a function has an opaque in its signature.
best reviewed commit by commit
Add `lazy_type_alias` feature gate
Add the `type_alias_type` to be able to have the weak alias used without restrictions.
Part of #112792.
cc `@compiler-errors`
r? `@oli-obk`
Add a fully fledged `Clause` type, rename old `Clause` to `ClauseKind`
Does two basic things before I put up a more delicate set of PRs (along the lines of #112714, but hopefully much cleaner) that migrate existing usages of `ty::Predicate` to `ty::Clause` (`predicates_of`/`item_bounds`/`ParamEnv::caller_bounds`).
1. Rename `Clause` to `ClauseKind`, so it's parallel with `PredicateKind`.
2. Add a new `Clause` type which is parallel to `Predicate`.
* This type exposes `Clause::kind(self) -> Binder<'tcx, ClauseKind<'tcx>>` which is parallel to `Predicate::kind` 😸
The new `Clause` type essentially acts as a newtype wrapper around `Predicate` that asserts that it is specifically a `PredicateKind::Clause`. Turns out from experimentation[^1] that this is not negative performance-wise, which is wonderful, since this a much simpler design than something that requires encoding the discriminant into the alignment bits of a predicate kind, or something else like that...
r? ``@lcnr`` or ``@oli-obk``
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112714#issuecomment-1595653910
Add `implement_via_object` to `rustc_deny_explicit_impl` to control object candidate assembly
Some built-in traits are special, since they are used to prove facts about the program that are important for later phases of compilation such as codegen and CTFE. For example, the `Unsize` trait is used to assert to the compiler that we are able to unsize a type into another type. It doesn't have any methods because it doesn't actually *instruct* the compiler how to do this unsizing, but this is later used (alongside an exhaustive match of combinations of unsizeable types) during codegen to generate unsize coercion code.
Due to this, these built-in traits are incompatible with the type erasure provided by object types. For example, the existence of `dyn Unsize<T>` does not mean that the compiler is able to unsize `Box<dyn Unsize<T>>` into `Box<T>`, since `Unsize` is a *witness* to the fact that a type can be unsized, and it doesn't actually encode that unsizing operation in its vtable as mentioned above.
The old trait solver gets around this fact by having complex control flow that never considers object bounds for certain built-in traits:
2f896da247/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/candidate_assembly.rs (L61-L132)
However, candidate assembly in the new solver is much more lovely, and I'd hate to add this list of opt-out cases into the new solver. Instead of maintaining this complex and hard-coded control flow, instead we can make this a property of the trait via a built-in attribute. We already have such a build attribute that's applied to every single trait that we care about: `rustc_deny_explicit_impl`. This PR adds `implement_via_object` as a meta-item to that attribute that allows us to opt a trait out of object-bound candidate assembly as well.
r? `@lcnr`
Make `Bound::predicates` use `Clause`
Part of #107250
`Bound::predicates` returns an iterator over `Binder<_, Clause>` instead of `Predicate`.
I tried updating `explicit_predicates_of` as well, but it seems that it needs a lot more change than I thought. Will do it in a separate PR instead.
