safe transmute: use `Assume` struct to provide analysis options
This task was left as a TODO in #92268; resolving it brings [`BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/mem/trait.BikeshedIntrinsicFrom.html) more in line with the API defined in [MCP411](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411).
**Before:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<
Src,
Context,
const ASSUME_ALIGNMENT: bool,
const ASSUME_LIFETIMES: bool,
const ASSUME_VALIDITY: bool,
const ASSUME_VISIBILITY: bool,
> where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
**After:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<Src, Context, const ASSUME: Assume = { Assume::NOTHING }>
where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
`Assume::visibility` has also been renamed to `Assume::safety`, as library safety invariants are what's actually being assumed; visibility is just the mechanism by which it is currently checked (and that may change).
r? `@oli-obk`
---
Related:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99571
remove `commit_unconditionally`
`commit_unconditionally` is a noop unless we somehow inspect the current state of our snapshot. The only thing which does that is the leak check which was only used in one place where `commit_if_ok` is probably at least as, or even more, correct.
r? rust-lang/types
This initial implementation handles transmutations between types with specified layouts, except when references are involved.
Co-authored-by: Igor null <m1el.2027@gmail.com>
Fix hack that remaps env constness.
WARNING: might have perf implications.
Are there any more problems with having a constness in the `ParamEnv` now? :)
r? `@oli-obk`
Move abstract const to middle
Moves AbstractConst (and all associated methods) to rustc middle for use in `rustc_infer`.
This allows for const resolution in infer to use abstract consts to walk consts and check if
they are resolvable.
This attempts to resolve the issue where `Foo<{ concrete const }, generic T>` is incorrectly marked as conflicting, and is independent from the other issue where nested abstract consts must be resolved.
r? `@lcnr`
don't succeed `evaluate_obligation` query if new opaque types were registered
fixes#98608fixes#98604
The root cause of all this is that in type flag computation we entirely ignore nongeneric things like struct fields and the signature of function items. So if a flag had to be set for a struct if it is set for a field, that will only happen if the field is generic, as only the generic parameters are checked.
I now believe we cannot use type flags to handle opaque types. They seem like the wrong tool for this.
Instead, this PR replaces the previous logic by adding a new variant of `EvaluatedToOk`: `EvaluatedToOkModuloOpaqueTypes`, which says that there were some opaque types that got hidden types bound, but that binding may not have been legal (because we don't know if the opaque type was in its defining scope or not).
