type is too big -> values of the type are too big
strictly speaking, `[u8; usize::MAX]` or even `[[[u128; usize::MAX]; usize::MAX]; usize::MAX]` are absolutely fine types as long as you don't try to deal with any values of it.
This error message seems to cause some confusion imo, for example in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79135#issuecomment-729361380 so I would prefer us to be more precise here.
See the added test case which uses one of these types without causing an error.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Introduce `TypeVisitor::BreakTy`
Implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#383.
r? `@ghost`
cc `@lcnr` `@oli-obk`
~~Blocked on FCP in rust-lang/compiler-team#383.~~
look at assoc ct, check the type of nodes
an example where types matter are function objects, see the added test which previously passed.
Now does a shallow comparison of unevaluated constants.
r? ```@oli-obk```
The discussion seems to have resolved that this lint is a bit "noisy" in
that applying it in all places would result in a reduction in
readability.
A few of the trivial functions (like `Path::new`) are fine to leave
outside of closures.
The general rule seems to be that anything that is obviously an
allocation (`Box`, `Vec`, `vec![]`) should be in a closure, even if it
is a 0-sized allocation.
revert #75443, update mir validator
This PR reverts rust-lang#75443 to fix rust-lang#75992 and instead uses rust-lang#75419 to fix rust-lang#75313.
Adapts rust-lang#75419 to correctly deal with unevaluated constants as otherwise some `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` tests would ICE.
Note that rust-lang#72793 was also fixed by rust-lang#75443, but as that issue only concerns `feature(type_alias_impl_trait)` I deleted that test case for now and would reopen that issue.
rust-lang#75443 may have also allowed some other code to now successfully compile which would make this revert a breaking change after 2 stable versions, but I hope that this is a purely theoretical concern.
See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/generator.20upvars/near/214617274 for more reasoning about this.
r? `@nikomatsakis` `@eddyb` `@RalfJung`
check object safety of generic constants
As `Self` can only be effectively used in constants with `const_evaluatable_checked` this should not matter outside of it.
Implements the first item of #72219
> Object safety interactions with constants
r? @oli-obk for now cc @nikomatsakis
Tweak match arm semicolon removal suggestion to account for futures
* Tweak and extend "use `.await`" suggestions
* Suggest removal of semicolon on prior match arm
* Account for `impl Future` when suggesting semicolon removal
* Silence some errors when encountering `await foo()?` as can't be certain what the intent was
*Thanks to https://twitter.com/a_hoverbear/status/1318960787105353728 for pointing this out!*
Cycles in normalization can cause evaluations to change from Unknown to
Err. This means that some selection that were applicable no longer are.
To avoid this:
* Selection candidates that are known to be applicable are prefered
over candidates that are not.
* We don't ICE if a candidate is no longer applicable.
