Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Bubble up opaque <eq> opaque operations instead of picking an order
In case we are in `Bubble` mode (meaning every opaque type that is defined in the current crate is treated as if it were in its defining scope), we don't try to register an opaque type as the hidden type of another opaque type, but instead bubble up an obligation to equate them at the query caller site. Usually that means we have a `DefiningAnchor::Bind` and thus can reliably figure out whether an opaque type is in its defining scope. Where we can't, we'll error out, so the default is sound.
With this change we start using `AliasTyEq` predicates in the old solver, too.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108498
But also regresses `tests/ui/impl-trait/anon_scope_creep.rs`. Our use of `Bubble` for `check_opaque_type_well_formed` is going to keep biting us.
r? `@lcnr` `@compiler-errors`
normalize in `trait_ref_is_knowable` in new solver
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/51
Alternatively we could avoid normalizing the self type and do this at the end of the `assemble_candidates_via_self_ty` stack by splitting candidates into:
- applicable without normalizing self type
- applicable for aliases, even if they can be normalized
- applicable for stuff which cannot get normalized further
I don't think this would have any significant benefits and it also seems non-trivial to avoid normalizing only the self type in `trait_ref_is_knowable`.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rework upcasting confirmation to support upcasting to fewer projections in target bounds
This PR implements a modified trait upcasting algorithm that is resilient to changes in the number of associated types in the bounds of the source and target trait objects.
It does this by equating each bound of the target trait ref individually against the bounds of the source trait ref, rather than doing them all together by constructing a new trait object.
#### The new way we do trait upcasting confirmation
1. Equate the target trait object's principal trait ref with one of the supertraits of the source trait object's principal.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2509-L2525)
2. Make sure that every auto trait in the *target* trait object is present in the source trait ref's bounds.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2559-L2562)
3. For each projection in the *target* trait object, make sure there is exactly one projection that equates with it in the source trait ref's bound. If there is more than one, bail with ambiguity.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2526-L2557)
* Since there may be more than one that applies, we probe first to check that there is exactly one, then we equate it outside of a probe once we know that it's unique.
4. Make sure the lifetime of the source trait object outlives the lifetime of the target.
<details>
<summary>Meanwhile, this is how we used to do upcasting:</summary>
1. For each supertrait of the source trait object, take that supertrait, append the source object's projection bounds, and the *target* trait object's auto trait bounds, and make this into a new object type:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L915-L929)
2. Then equate it with the target trait object:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L936)
This will be a type mismatch if the target trait object has fewer projection bounds, since we compare the bounds structurally in relate:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/relate.rs (L696-L698)
</details>
Fixes#114035
Also fixes#114113, because I added a normalize call in the old solver.
r? types
