Fix ICE when multiple supertrait substitutions need assoc but only one is provided
Dyn traits must have all of their associated types constrained either by:
1. writing them in the dyn trait itself as an associated type bound, like `dyn Iterator<Item = u32>`,
2. A supertrait bound, like `trait ConstrainedIterator: Iterator<Item = u32> {}`, then you may write `dyn ConstrainedIterator` which doesn't need to mention `Item`.
However, the object type lowering code did not consider the fact that there may be multiple supertraits with different substitutions, so it just used the associated type's *def id* as a key for keeping track of which associated types are missing:
1fc691e6dd/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/dyn_compatibility.rs (L131)
This means that we can have missing associated types when there are mutliple supertraits with different substitutions and only one of them is constrained, like:
```rust
trait Sup<T> {
type Assoc: Default;
}
impl<T: Default> Sup<T> for () {
type Assoc = T;
}
impl<T: Default, U: Default> Dyn<T, U> for () {}
trait Dyn<A, B>: Sup<A, Assoc = A> + Sup<B> {}
```
The above example allows you to name `<dyn Dyn<i32, u32> as Sup<u32>>::Assoc` even though it is not possible to project since it's neither constrained by a manually written projection bound or a supertrait bound. This successfully type-checks, but leads to a codegen ICE since we are not able to project the associated type.
This PR fixes the validation for checking that a dyn trait mentions all of its associated type bounds. This is theoretically a breaking change, since you could technically use that `dyn Dyn<A, B>` type mentionedin the example above without actually *projecting* to the bad associated type, but I don't expect it to ever be relevant to a user since it's almost certainly a bug. This is corroborated with the crater results[^crater], which show no failures[^unknown].
Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133392#issuecomment-2508769703Fixes#133388
[^crater]: I cratered this originally with #133397, which is a PR that is stacked on top, then re-ran crater with just the failures from that PR.
[^unknown]: If you look at the crater results, it shows all of the passes as "unknown". I believe this is a crater bug, since looking at the results manually shows them as passes.
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
On implicit `Sized` bound on fn argument, point at type instead of pattern
Instead of
```
error[E0277]: the size for values of type `(dyn ThriftService<(), AssocType = _> + 'static)` cannot be known at compilation time
--> $DIR/issue-59324.rs:23:20
|
LL | fn with_factory<H>(factory: dyn ThriftService<()>) {}
| ^^^^^^^ doesn't have a size known at compile-time
```
output
```
error[E0277]: the size for values of type `(dyn ThriftService<(), AssocType = _> + 'static)` cannot be known at compilation time
--> $DIR/issue-59324.rs:23:29
|
LL | fn with_factory<H>(factory: dyn ThriftService<()>) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ doesn't have a size known at compile-time
```
Instead of
```
error[E0277]: the size for values of type `(dyn ThriftService<(), AssocType = _> + 'static)` cannot be known at compilation time
--> $DIR/issue-59324.rs:23:20
|
LL | fn with_factory<H>(factory: dyn ThriftService<()>) {}
| ^^^^^^^ doesn't have a size known at compile-time
```
output
```
error[E0277]: the size for values of type `(dyn ThriftService<(), AssocType = _> + 'static)` cannot be known at compilation time
--> $DIR/issue-59324.rs:23:29
|
LL | fn with_factory<H>(factory: dyn ThriftService<()>) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ doesn't have a size known at compile-time
```
Fix associated item removal suggestion
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal (treating it as a `help`). We now properly suggest to remove the code that needs to be removed.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
Check that alias-relate terms are WF if reporting an error in alias-relate
Check that each of the left/right term is WF when deriving a best error obligation for an alias-relate goal. This will make sure that given `<i32 as NotImplemented>::Assoc = ()` will drill down into `i32: NotImplemented` since we currently treat the projection as rigid.
r? lcnr
Fold item bounds before proving them in `check_type_bounds` in new solver
Vaguely confident that this is sufficient to prevent rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#46 and rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#62.
This is not the "correct" solution, but will probably suffice until coinduction, at which point we implement the right solution (`check_type_bounds` must prove `Assoc<...> alias-eq ConcreteType`, normalizing requires proving item bounds).
r? lcnr
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
A small diagnostic improvement for dropping_copy_types
For a value `m` which implements `Copy` trait, `drop(m);` does nothing.
We now suggest user to ignore it by a abstract and general note: `let _ = ...`.
I think we can give a clearer note here: `let _ = m;`
fixes#125189
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `t`
--> $DIR/use_of_moved_value_copy_suggestions.rs:7:9
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| - move occurs because `t` has type `T`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | (t, t)
| - ^ value used here after move
| |
| value moved here
|
help: if `T` implemented `Clone`, you could clone the value
--> $DIR/use_of_moved_value_copy_suggestions.rs:4:16
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| ^ consider constraining this type parameter with `Clone`
...
LL | (t, t)
| - you could clone this value
help: consider restricting type parameter `T`
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T: Copy>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| ++++++
```
The `help` is new. On ADTs, we also extend the output with span labels:
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of static item `FOO`
--> $DIR/issue-17718-static-move.rs:6:14
|
LL | let _a = FOO;
| ^^^ move occurs because `FOO` has type `Foo`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
|
note: if `Foo` implemented `Clone`, you could clone the value
--> $DIR/issue-17718-static-move.rs:1:1
|
LL | struct Foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^ consider implementing `Clone` for this type
...
LL | let _a = FOO;
| --- you could clone this value
help: consider borrowing here
|
LL | let _a = &FOO;
| +
```
Suggest using type args directly instead of equality constraint
When type arguments are written erroneously using an equality constraint we suggest specifying them directly without the equality constraint.
Fixes#122162
Changes the diagnostic in the issue from:
```rust
error[E0229]: associated type bindings are not allowed here
9 | impl std::cmp::PartialEq<Rhs = T> for S {
| ^^^^^^^ associated type not allowed here
|
```
to
```rust
error[E0229]: associated type bindings are not allowed here
9 | impl std::cmp::PartialEq<Rhs = T> for S {
| ^^^^^^^ associated type not allowed here
|
help: to use `T` as a generic argument specify it directly
|
| impl std::cmp::PartialEq<T> for S {
| ~
```
