normalize mir::Constant differently from ty::Const in preparation for valtrees
Valtrees are unable to represent many kind of constant values (this is on purpose). For constants that are used at runtime, we do not need a valtree representation and can thus use a different form of evaluation. In order to make this explicit and less fragile, I added a `fold_constant` method to `TypeFolder` and implemented it for normalization. Normalization can now, when it wants to eagerly evaluate a constant, normalize `mir::Constant` directly into a `mir::ConstantKind::Val` instead of relying on the `ty::Const` evaluation.
In the future we can get rid of the `ty::Const` in there entirely and add our own `Unevaluated` variant to `mir::ConstantKind`. This would allow us to remove the `promoted` field from `ty::ConstKind::Unevaluated`, as promoteds can never occur in the type system.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
r? `@lcnr`
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
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``
Replace tuple of infer vars for upvar_tys with single infer var
This commit allows us to decide the number of captures required after
completing capture ananysis, which is required as part of implementing
RFC-2229.
closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/4
r? `@nikomatsakis`
This commit allows us to decide the number of captures required after
completing capture ananysis, which is required as part of implementing
RFC-2229.
Co-authored-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>
Co-authored-by: Jenny Wills <wills.jenniferg@gmail.com>
