Replace use of `ty()` on term and use it in more places. This will allow more flexibility in the
future, but slightly worried it allows items which are consts which only accept types.
ProjectionPredicate should be able to handle both associated types and consts so this adds the
first step of that. It mainly just pipes types all the way down, not entirely sure how to handle
consts, but hopefully that'll come with time.
Normalize struct tail type when checking Pointee trait
Let's go ahead and implement the FIXMEs by properly normalizing the struct-tail type when satisfying a Pointee obligation. This should fix the ICE when we try to calculate a layout depending on `<Ty as Pointee>::Metadata` later.
Fixes#92128Fixes#92577
Additionally, mark the obligation as ambiguous if there are any infer types in that struct-tail type. This has the effect of causing `<_ as Pointee>::Metadata` to be properly replaced with an infer variable ([here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/project.rs#L813)) and registered as an obligation... this turns out to be very important in unifying function parameters with formals that are assoc types.
Fixes#91446
Instead of special-casing mutable pointers/references, we
now support general generic types (currently, we handle
`ty::Ref`, `ty::RawPtr`, and `ty::Adt`)
When a `ty::Adt` is involved, we show an additional note
explaining which of the type's generic parameters is
invariant (e.g. the `T` in `Cell<T>`). Currently, we don't
explain *why* a particular generic parameter ends up becoming
invariant. In the general case, this could require printing
a long 'backtrace' of types, so doing this would be
more suitable for a follow-up PR.
We still only handle the case where our variance switches
to `ty::Invariant`.
See #91867
This was mostly straightforward. In several places, I take advantage
of the fact that lifetimes are non-hygenic: a macro declares the
'tcx' lifetime, which is then used in types passed in as macro
arguments.
Print associated types on opaque `impl Trait` types
This PR generalizes #91021, printing associated types for all opaque `impl Trait` types instead of just special-casing for future.
before:
```
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<impl Iterator as Iterator>::Item == u32`
```
after:
```
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<impl Iterator<Item = usize> as Iterator>::Item == u32`
```
---
Questions:
1. I'm kinda lost in binders hell with this one. Is all of the `rebind`ing necessary?
2. Is there a map collection type that will give me a stable iteration order? Doesn't seem like TraitRef is Ord, so I can't just sort later..
3. I removed the logic that suppresses printing generator projection types. It creates outputs like this [gist](https://gist.github.com/compiler-errors/d6f12fb30079feb1ad1d5f1ab39a3a8d). Should I put that back?
4. I also added spaces between traits, `impl A+B` -> `impl A + B`. I quite like this change, but is there a good reason to keep it like that?
r? ````@estebank````
Be explicit about using Binder::dummy
This is somewhat of a late followup to the binder refactor PR. It removes `ToPredicate` and `ToPolyTraitImpls` that hide the use of `Binder::dummy`. While this does make code a bit more verbose, it allows us be more careful about where we create binders.
Another alternative here might be to add a new trait `ToBinder` or something with a `dummy()` fn. Which could still allow grepping but allows doing something like `trait_ref.dummy()` (but I also wonder if longer-term, it would be better to be even more explicit with a `bind_with_vars(ty::List::empty())` *but* that's not clear yet.
r? ``@nikomatsakis``
We now fallback type variables using the following rules:
* Construct a coercion graph `A -> B` where `A` and `B` are unresolved
type variables or the `!` type.
* Let D be those variables that are reachable from `!`.
* Let N be those variables that are reachable from a variable not in
D.
* All variables in (D \ N) fallback to `!`.
* All variables in (D & N) fallback to `()`.
Allow raw pointers in SIMD types
Closes#85915 by loosening the strictness in typechecking and adding a test to guarantee it passes.
This still might be too strict, as references currently do pass monomorphization, but my understanding is that they are not guaranteed to be "scalar" in the same way.
