Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
Don't check unnecessarily that impl trait is RPIT
We have this random `return_type_impl_trait` function to detect if a function returns an RPIT which is used in outlives suggestions, but removing it doesn't actually change any diagnostics. Let's just remove it.
Also, suppress a spurious outlives error from a ReError.
Fixes#114274
Map RPITIT's opaque type bounds back from projections to opaques
An RPITIT in a program's AST is eventually translated into both a projection GAT and an opaque. The opaque is used for default trait methods, like:
```
trait Foo {
fn bar() -> impl Sized { 0i32 }
}
```
The item bounds for both the projection and opaque are identical, and both have a *projection* self ty. This is mostly okay, since we can normalize this projection within the default trait method body to the opaque, but it does two things:
1. it leads to bugs in places where we don't normalize item bounds, like `deduce_future_output_from_obligations`
2. it leads to extra match arms that are both suspicious looking and also easy to miss
This PR maps the opaque type bounds of the RPITIT's *opaque* back to the opaque's self type to avoid this quirk. Then we can fix the UI test for #108304 (1.) and also remove a bunch of match arms (2.).
Fixes#108304
r? `@spastorino`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114099 (privacy: no nominal visibility for assoc fns )
- #114128 (When flushing delayed span bugs, write to the ICE dump file even if it doesn't exist)
- #114138 (Adjust spans correctly for fn -> method suggestion)
- #114146 (Skip reporting item name when checking RPITIT GAT's associated type bounds hold)
- #114147 (Insert RPITITs that were shadowed by missing ADTs that resolve to [type error])
- #114155 (Replace a lazy `RefCell<Option<T>>` with `OnceCell<T>`)
- #114164 (Add regression test for `--cap-lints allow` and trait bounds warning)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Double check that hidden types match the expected hidden type
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113278 specifically, but I left a TODO for where we should also add some hardening.
It feels a bit like papering over the issue, but at least this way we don't get unsoundness, but just surprising errors. Errors will be improved and given spans before this PR lands.
r? `@compiler-errors` `@lcnr`
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
| ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
Make it clearer that we're just checking for an RPITIT
Tiny nit to use `is_impl_trait_in_trait` more, to make it clearer that we're just checking whether a def-id is an RPITIT, rather than doing something meaningful with the `opt_rpitit_info`.
r? `@spastorino`
