Deeply normalize when computing implied outlives bounds
r? lcnr
Unfortunately resolving regions is still slightly scuffed (though in an unrelated way). Specifically, we should be normalizing our param-env outlives when constructing the `OutlivesEnv`; otherwise, these assumptions (dd2837ec5d/compiler/rustc_infer/src/infer/outlives/env.rs (L78)) are not constructed correctly.
Let me know if you want us to track that somewhere.
Get rid of HIR const checker
As far as I can tell, the HIR const checker was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66170 because we were not able to issue useful const error messages in the MIR const checker.
This seems to have changed in the last 5 years, probably due to work like #90532. I've tweaked the diagnostics slightly and think the error messages have gotten *better* in fact.
Thus I think the HIR const checker has reached the end of its usefulness, and we can retire it.
cc `@RalfJung`
Make `compare_impl_item` into a query
Turns `compare_impl_item` into a query (generalizing the existing query for `compare_impl_const`), and uses that in `Instance::resolve` to fail resolution when an implementation is incompatible with the trait it comes from.
Fixes#119701Fixes#121127Fixes#121411Fixes#129075Fixes#129127Fixes#129214Fixes#131294
tests: Add regression test for self referential structs with cow as last field
Making compilation pass for this code was retroactively stabilized via FCP in 1.79. The code does not compile in 1.78.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129541 for details.
Closes#107481
I was surprised to find that running with `-Zparse-only` only parses the
crate root file. Other files aren't parsed because that happens later
during expansion.
This commit renames the option and updates the help message to make this
clearer.
Rollup of 12 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129409 (Expand std::os::unix::fs::chown() doc with a warning)
- #133320 (Add release notes for Rust 1.83.0)
- #133368 (Delay a bug when encountering an impl with unconstrained generics in `codegen_select`)
- #133428 (Actually use placeholder regions for trait method late bound regions in `collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys`)
- #133512 (Add `as_array` and `as_mut_array` conversion methods to slices.)
- #133519 (Check `xform_ret_ty` for WF in the new solver to improve method winnowing)
- #133520 (Structurally resolve before applying projection in borrowck)
- #133534 (extend group-forbid-always-trumps-cli test)
- #133537 ([rustdoc] Fix new clippy lints)
- #133543 ([AIX] create shim for lgammaf_r)
- #133547 (rustc_span: Replace a `HashMap<_, ()>` with `HashSet`)
- #133550 (print generated doc paths)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Structurally resolve before applying projection in borrowck
As far as I can tell, all other `.normalize` calls in borrowck are noops and can remain that way. This is the only one that actually requires structurally resolving the type.
r? lcnr
Check `xform_ret_ty` for WF in the new solver to improve method winnowing
This is a bit interesting. Method probing in the old solver is stronger than the new solver because eagerly normalizing types causes us to check their corresponding trait goals. This is important because we don't end up checking all of the where clauses of a method when method probing; just the where clauses of the impl. i.e., for:
```
impl Foo
where
WC1,
{
fn method()
where
WC2,
{}
}
```
We only check WC1 and not WC2. This is because at this point in probing the method is instantiated w/ infer vars, and checking the where clauses in WC2 will lead to cycles if we were to check them (at least that's my understanding; I could investigate changing that in general, incl. in the old solver, but I don't have much confidence that it won't lead to really bad overflows.)
This PR chooses to emulate the old solver by just checking that the return type is WF. This is theoretically stronger, but I'm not too worried about it. I think we alternatively have several approaches we can take here, though this one seems the simplest. Thoughts?
r? lcnr
Delay a bug when encountering an impl with unconstrained generics in `codegen_select`
Despite its name, `codegen_select` is what powers `Instance::try_resolve`, which is used in pre-codegen contexts to try to resolve a method where possible. One place that it's used is in the "recursion MIR lint" that detects recursive MIR bodies.
If we encounter an impl in `codegen_select` that contains unconstrained generic parameters, we expect that impl to caused an error to be reported; however, there's no temporal guarantee that this error is reported *before* we call `codegen_select`. This is what a delayed bug is *for*, and this PR makes us use a delayed bug rather than asserting something about errors already having been emitted.
Fixes #126646
Structurally resolve before matching on type of projection
Another missing structural resolve in closure upvar analysis. I think it's better to place the normalization here rather than trying to guarantee that all types returned by the expr use visitor are structurally normalized, which I don't think we do now. Thoughts?
r? lcnr
do not constrain infer vars in `find_best_leaf_obligation`
This ended up causing an ICE by making the following code path reachable by incorrectly constraining an inference variable while computing the best obligation for a preceding ambiguity. Closes#129444.
f2abf827c1/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/solve/fulfill.rs (L312-L314)
I have to be honest, I don't fully understand how that change removes all the additional diagnostics :3
r? `@compiler-errors`
Bail on more errors in dyn ty lowering
If we have more than one principal trait, or if we have a principal trait with errors in it, then bail with `TyKind::Error` rather than attempting lowering. Lowering a dyn trait with more than one principal just arbitrarily chooses the first one and drops the subsequent ones, and lowering a dyn trait path with errors in it is just kinda useless.
This suppresses unnecessary errors which I think is net-good, but also is important to make sure that we don't end up leaking `{type error}` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133388 error messaging :)
r? types
tests: Add regression test for recursive enum with Cow and Clone
I could not find any existing test. `git grep "(Cow<'[^>]\+\["` gave no hits before this tests.
Closes#100347
Cleanup: delete `//@ pretty-expanded` directive
This PR removes the `//@ pretty-expanded` directive support in compiletest and removes its usage inside ui tests because it does not actually do anything, and its existence is itself misleading. This PR is split into two commits:
1. The first commit just drops `pretty-expanded` directive support in compiletest.
2. The second commit is created by `sd '//@ pretty-expanded.*\n' '' tests/ui/**/*.rs`[^1], reblessing, and slightly adjusting some leading whitespace in a few tests.
We can tell this is fully removed because compiletest doesn't complain about unknown directive when running the `ui` test suite.
cc #23616
### History
Originally, there was some effort to introduce more test coverage for `-Z unpretty=expanded` (in 2015 this was called `--pretty=expanded`). In [Make it an error to not declare used features #23598][pr-23598], there was a flip from `//@ no-pretty-expanded` (opt-out of `-Z
unpretty=expanded` test) to `//@ pretty-expanded` (opt-in to `-Z unpretty=expanded` test). This was needed because back then the dedicated `tests/pretty` ("pretty") test suite did not existed, and the pretty tests were grouped together under `run-pass` tests (I believe the `ui` test suite didn't exist back then either). Unfortunately, in this process the replacement `//@ pretty-expanded` directives contained a `FIXME #23616` linking to [There are very few tests for `-Z unpretty` expansion #23616][issue-23616]. But this was arguably backwards and somewhat misleading, as noted in [#23616](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23616#issuecomment-484999901):
The attribute is off by default and things just work if you don't
test it, people have not been adding the `pretty-expanded`
annotation to new tests even if it would work.
Which basically renders this useless.
### Current status
As of Nov 2024, we have a dedicated `pretty` test suite, and some time over the years the split between `run-pass` into `ui` and `pretty` test suites caused all the `//@ pretty-expanded` in `ui` tests to do absolutely nothing: the compiletest logic for `pretty-expanded` only triggers in the *pretty* test suite, but none of the pretty tests use it. Oops.
Nobody remembers this, nobody uses this, it's misleading in ui tests. Let's get rid of this directive altogether.
[pr-23598]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/23598
[issue-23616]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23616
### Follow-ups
- [x] Yeet this directive from rustc-dev-guide docs. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2147
[^1]: https://github.com/chmln/sd
r? compiler
Minimally constify `Add`
* This PR removes the requirement for `impl const` to have a const stability attribute. cc ``@RalfJung`` I believe you mentioned that it would make much more sense to require `const_trait`s to have const stability instead. I agree with that sentiment but I don't think that is _required_ for a small scale experimentation like this PR. https://github.com/rust-lang/project-const-traits/issues/16 should definitely be prioritized in the future, but removing the impl check should be good for now as all callers need `const_trait_impl` enabled for any const impl to work.
* This PR is intentionally minimal as constifying other traits can become more complicated (`PartialEq`, for example, would run into requiring implementing it for `str` as that is used in matches, which runs into the implementation for slice equality which uses specialization)
Per the reasons above, anyone who is interested in making traits `const` in the standard library are **strongly encouraged** to reach out to us on the [Zulip channel](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits) before proceeding with the work.
cc ``@rust-lang/project-const-traits``
I believe there is prior approval from libs that we can experiment, so
r? project-const-traits
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #132090 (Stop being so bail-y in candidate assembly)
- #132658 (Detect const in pattern with typo)
- #132911 (Pretty print async fn sugar in opaques and trait bounds)
- #133102 (aarch64 softfloat target: always pass floats in int registers)
- #133159 (Don't allow `-Zunstable-options` to take a value )
- #133208 (generate-copyright: Now generates a library file too.)
- #133215 (Fix missing submodule in `./x vendor`)
- #133264 (implement OsString::truncate)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Stop being so bail-y in candidate assembly
A conceptual follow-up to #132084. We gotta stop bailing so much when there are errors; it's both unnecessary, leads to weird knock-on errors, and it's messing up the vibes lol
Implement `~const Destruct` effect goal in the new solver
This also fixed a subtle bug/limitation of the `NeedsConstDrop` check. Specifically, the "`Qualif`" API basically treats const drops as totally structural, even though dropping something that has an explicit `Drop` implementation cannot be structurally decomposed. For example:
```rust
#![feature(const_trait_impl)]
#[const_trait] trait Foo {
fn foo();
}
struct Conditional<T: Foo>(T);
impl Foo for () {
fn foo() {
println!("uh oh");
}
}
impl<T> const Drop for Conditional<T> where T: ~const Foo {
fn drop(&mut self) {
T::foo();
}
}
const FOO: () = {
let _ = Conditional(());
//~^ This should error.
};
fn main() {}
```
In this example, when checking if the `Conditional(())` rvalue is const-drop, since `Conditional` has a const destructor, we would previously recurse into the `()` value and determine it has nothing to drop, which means that it is considered to *not* need a const drop -- even though dropping `Conditional(())` would mean evaluating the destructor which relies on that `T: const Foo` bound to hold!
This could be fixed alternatively by banning any const conditions on `const Drop` impls, but that really sucks -- that means that basically no *interesting* const drop impls could be written. We have the capability to totally and intuitively support the right behavior, which I've implemented here.
