Prefer doc comments over `//`-comments in compiler
Doc comments are generally nicer: they show up in the documentation, they are shown in IDEs when you hover other mentions of items, etc. Thus it makes sense to use them instead of `//`-comments.
Initial pass at expr/abstract const/s
Address comments
Switch to using a list instead of &[ty::Const], rm `AbstractConst`
Remove try_unify_abstract_consts
Update comments
Add edits
Recurse more
More edits
Prevent equating associated consts
Move failing test to ui
Changes this test from incremental to ui, and mark it as failing and a known bug.
Does not cause the compiler to ICE, so should be ok.
nll: correctly deal with bivariance
fixes#104409
when in a bivariant context, relating stuff should always trivially succeed. Also changes the mir validator to correctly deal with higher ranked regions.
r? types cc ``@RalfJung``
interpret: support for per-byte provenance
Also factors the provenance map into its own module.
The third commit does the same for the init mask. I can move it in a separate PR if you prefer.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2181
r? `@oli-obk`
Accept `TyCtxt` instead of `TyCtxtAt` in `Ty::is_*` functions
Functions in answer:
- `Ty::is_freeze`
- `Ty::is_sized`
- `Ty::is_unpin`
- `Ty::is_copy_modulo_regions`
This allows to remove a lot of useless `.at(DUMMY_SP)`, making the code a bit nicer :3
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add eval hack in `super_relate_consts` back
Partially reverts 01adb7e98d.
This extra eval call *still* needs to happen, for example, in `normalize_param_env_or_error` when a param-env predicate has an unnormalized constant, since the param-env candidates never get normalized during candidate assembly (everywhere else we can assume that they are normalized fully).
r? `@lcnr,` though I feel like I've assigned quite a few PRs to you in the last few days, so feel free to reassign to someone else familiar with this code if you're busy!
cc #103243 (fixes the issue, but don't want to auto-close that until a backport is performed).
interpret: remove an incorrect assertion
This fixes an ICE in Miri, [reported](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/269128-miri/topic/SwitchInt.20with.20no.20targets.3F) by `@saethlin.` The faulty assertion was introduced by 432535da2b, when a previously correct assertion checking that the `otherwise` target exists got replaced by this assertion checking that at least one more target beyond `otherwise` exists.
Sadly we don't have a small reproducer so I don't think we can easily add a testcase.
