Remove allow(rustc::potential_query_instability) in rustc_trait_selection
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84447
This PR needs to be benchmarked to check for regressions.
Better error for HRTB error from generator interior
cc #100013
This is just a first pass at an error. It could be better, and shouldn't really be emitted in the first place. But this is better than what was being emitted before.
Make InferCtxtExt use a FxIndexMap
This should be faster, because the map is only being used to iterate,
which is supposed to be faster with the IndexMap
Make the user_computed_preds use an IndexMap
It is being used mostly for iteration, so the change shouldn't result in
a perf hit
Make the RegionDeps fields use an IndexMap
This change could be a perf hit. Both `larger` and `smaller` are used
for iteration, but they are also used for insertions.
Make types_without_default_bounds use an IndexMap
It uses extend, but it also iterates and removes items. Not sure if
this will be a perf hit.
Make InferTtxt.reported_trait_errors use an IndexMap
This change brought a lot of other changes. The map seems to have been
mostly used for iteration, so the performance shouldn't suffer.
Add FIXME to change ProvisionalEvaluationCache.map to use an IndexMap
Right now this results in a perf hit. IndexMap doesn't have
the `drain_filter` API, so in `on_completion` we now need to iterate two
times over the map.
Remove `DefId` from some `SelectionCandidate` variants
They are both from `obligation.predicate.def_id()`, which do not need to be on the `SelectionCandidate`.
cc ````@lcnr```` ````@compiler-errors````
Fix ICE #101739
Fixes a part of #101739
This cannot cover the following case. It causes `too many args provided` error and obligation does not have references error. I want your advice to solve the following cases as well in this pull request or a follow-up.
```rust
#![crate_type = "lib"]
#![feature(transmutability)]
#![allow(dead_code, incomplete_features, non_camel_case_types)]
mod assert {
use std::mem::BikeshedIntrinsicFrom;
pub fn is_transmutable<
Src,
Dst,
Context,
const ASSUME_ALIGNMENT: bool,
const ASSUME_LIFETIMES: bool,
const ASSUME_VALIDITY: bool,
const ASSUME_VISIBILITY: bool,
>()
where
Dst: BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<
Src,
Context,
ASSUME_ALIGNMENT,
ASSUME_LIFETIMES,
ASSUME_VALIDITY,
ASSUME_VISIBILITY,
>,
{}
}
fn via_const() {
struct Context;
#[repr(C)] struct Src;
#[repr(C)] struct Dst;
const FALSE: bool = false;
assert::is_transmutable::<Src, Dst, Context, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE>();
}
```
Move lint level source explanation to the bottom
So, uhhhhh
r? `@estebank`
## User-facing change
"note: `#[warn(...)]` on by default" and such are moved to the bottom of the diagnostic:
```diff
- = note: `#[warn(unsupported_calling_conventions)]` on by default
= warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
= note: for more information, see issue #87678 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87678>
+ = note: `#[warn(unsupported_calling_conventions)]` on by default
```
Why warning is enabled is the least important thing, so it shouldn't be the first note the user reads, IMO.
## Developer-facing change
`struct_span_lint` and similar methods have a different signature.
Before: `..., impl for<'a> FnOnce(LintDiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>)`
After: `..., impl Into<DiagnosticMessage>, impl for<'a, 'b> FnOnce(&'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>) -> &'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>`
The reason for this is that `struct_span_lint` needs to edit the diagnostic _after_ `decorate` closure is called. This also makes lint code a little bit nicer in my opinion.
Another option is to use `impl for<'a> FnOnce(LintDiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>) -> DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>` altough I don't _really_ see reasons to do `let lint = lint.build(message)` everywhere.
## Subtle problem
By moving the message outside of the closure (that may not be called if the lint is disabled) `format!(...)` is executed earlier, possibly formatting `Ty` which may call a query that trims paths that crashes the compiler if there were no warnings...
I don't think it's that big of a deal, considering that we move from `format!(...)` to `fluent` (which is lazy by-default) anyway, however this required adding a workaround which is unfortunate.
## P.S.
I'm sorry, I do not how to make this PR smaller/easier to review. Changes to the lint API affect SO MUCH 😢
remove outdated coherence hack
we have a more precise detection for downstream conflicts in candidate assembly: the `is_knowable` check in `candidate_from_obligation_no_cache`.
r? types cc `@nikomatsakis`
Make cycle errors recoverable
In particular, this allows rustdoc to recover from cycle errors when normalizing associated types for documentation.
In the past, ```@jackh726``` has said we need to be careful about overflow errors: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91430#issuecomment-983997013
> Off the top of my head, we definitely should be careful about treating overflow errors the same as
"not implemented for some reason" errors. Otherwise, you could end up with behavior that is
different depending on recursion depth. But, that might be context-dependent.
But cycle errors should be safe to unconditionally report; they don't depend on the recursion depth, they will always be an error whenever they're encountered.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81091.
r? ```@lcnr``` cc ```@matthewjasper```
a fn pointer doesn't implement `Fn`/`FnMut`/`FnOnce` if its return type isn't sized
I stumbled upon #83915 which hasn't received much attention recently, and I wanted to revive it since this is one existing soundness hole that seems pretty easy to fix.
I'm not actually sure that the [alternative approach described here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83915#issuecomment-823643322) is sufficient, given the `src/test/ui/function-pointer/unsized-ret.rs` example I provided below. Rebasing the branch mentioned in that comment and testing that UI test, it seems that we actually end up only observing that `str: !Sized` during monomorphization, whereupon we ICE. Even if we were to fix that ICE, ideally we'd be raising an error that a fn pointer is being used badly during _typecheck_ instead of monomorphization, hence adapting the original approach in #83915.
I am happy to close this if people would prefer we rebase the original PR and land that -- I am partly opening to be annoying and get people thinking about this unsoundness again ❤️😸
cc: `@estebank` and `@nikomatsakis`
r? types
Here's a link to the thread: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/144729-t-types/topic/PR.20.2383915/near/235421351 for more context.
