Trait upcasting coercion (part 3)
By using separate candidates for each possible choice, this fixes type-checking issues in previous commits.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
During function type-checking, we normalize any associated types in
the function signature (argument types + return type), and then
create WF obligations for each of the normalized types. The HIR wf code
does not currently support this case, so any errors that we get have
imprecise spans.
This commit extends `ObligationCauseCode::WellFormed` to support
recording a function parameter, allowing us to get the corresponding
HIR type if an error occurs. Function typechecking is modified to
pass this information during signature normalization and WF checking.
The resulting code is fairly verbose, due to the fact that we can
no longer normalize the entire signature with a single function call.
As part of the refactoring, we now perform HIR-based WF checking
for several other 'typed items' (statics, consts, and inherent impls).
As a result, WF and projection errors in a function signature now
have a precise span, which points directly at the responsible type.
If a function signature is constructed via a macro, this will allow
the error message to point at the code 'most responsible' for the error
(e.g. a user-supplied macro argument).
During well-formed checking, we walk through all types 'nested' in
generic arguments. For example, WF-checking `Option<MyStruct<u8>>`
will cause us to check `MyStruct<u8>` and `u8`. However, this is done
on a `rustc_middle::ty::Ty`, which has no span information. As a result,
any errors that occur will have a very general span (e.g. the
definintion of an associated item).
This becomes a problem when macros are involved. In general, an
associated type like `type MyType = Option<MyStruct<u8>>;` may
have completely different spans for each nested type in the HIR. Using
the span of the entire associated item might end up pointing to a macro
invocation, even though a user-provided span is available in one of the
nested types.
This PR adds a framework for HIR-based well formed checking. This check
is only run during error reporting, and is used to obtain a more precise
span for an existing error. This is accomplished by individually
checking each 'nested' type in the HIR for the type, allowing us to
find the most-specific type (and span) that produces a given error.
The majority of the changes are to the error-reporting code. However,
some of the general trait code is modified to pass through more
information.
Since this has no soundness implications, I've implemented a minimal
version to begin with, which can be extended over time. In particular,
this only works for HIR items with a corresponding `DefId` (e.g. it will
not work for WF-checking performed within function bodies).
Fix expected/found order on impl trait projection mismatch error
fixes#68561
This PR adds a new `ObligationCauseCode` used when checking the concrete type of an impl trait satisfies its bounds, and checks for that cause code in the existing test to see if a projection's normalized type should be the "expected" or "found" type.
The second commit adds a `peel_derives` to that test, which appears to be necessary in some cases (see projection-mismatch-in-impl-where-clause.rs, which would still give expected/found in the wrong order otherwise). This caused some other changes in diagnostics not involving impl trait, but they look correct to me.
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
const_evaluatable_checked: Stop eagerly erroring in `is_const_evaluatable`
Fixes#82279
We don't want to be emitting errors inside of is_const_evaluatable because we may call this during selection where it should be able to fail silently
There were two errors being emitted in `is_const_evaluatable`. The one causing the compile error in #82279 was inside the match arm for `FailureKind::MentionsParam` but I moved the other error being emitted too since it made things cleaner imo
The `NotConstEvaluatable` enum \*should\* have a fourth variant for when we fail to evaluate a concrete const, e.g. `0 - 1` but that cant happen until #81339
cc `@oli-obk` `@lcnr`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Rust contains various size checks conditional on target_arch = "x86_64",
but these checks were never intended to apply to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32. Add target_pointer_width = "64" to the
conditions.
Implement RFC 2580: Pointer metadata & VTable
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2580
~~Before merging this PR:~~
* [x] Wait for the end of the RFC’s [FCP to merge](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2580#issuecomment-759145278).
* [x] Open a tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81513
* [x] Update `#[unstable]` attributes in the PR with the tracking issue number
----
This PR extends the language with a new lang item for the `Pointee` trait which is special-cased in trait resolution to implement it for all types. Even in generic contexts, parameters can be assumed to implement it without a corresponding bound.
For this I mostly imitated what the compiler was already doing for the `DiscriminantKind` trait. I’m very unfamiliar with compiler internals, so careful review is appreciated.
This PR also extends the standard library with new unstable APIs in `core::ptr` and `std::ptr`:
```rust
pub trait Pointee {
/// One of `()`, `usize`, or `DynMetadata<dyn SomeTrait>`
type Metadata: Copy + Send + Sync + Ord + Hash + Unpin;
}
pub trait Thin = Pointee<Metadata = ()>;
pub const fn metadata<T: ?Sized>(ptr: *const T) -> <T as Pointee>::Metadata {}
pub const fn from_raw_parts<T: ?Sized>(*const (), <T as Pointee>::Metadata) -> *const T {}
pub const fn from_raw_parts_mut<T: ?Sized>(*mut (),<T as Pointee>::Metadata) -> *mut T {}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub const fn from_raw_parts(NonNull<()>, <T as Pointee>::Metadata) -> NonNull<T> {}
/// Convenience for `(ptr.cast(), metadata(ptr))`
pub const fn to_raw_parts(self) -> (NonNull<()>, <T as Pointee>::Metadata) {}
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub const fn to_raw_parts(self) -> (*const (), <T as Pointee>::Metadata) {}
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub const fn to_raw_parts(self) -> (*mut (), <T as Pointee>::Metadata) {}
}
/// `<dyn SomeTrait as Pointee>::Metadata == DynMetadata<dyn SomeTrait>`
pub struct DynMetadata<Dyn: ?Sized> {
// Private pointer to vtable
}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> DynMetadata<Dyn> {
pub fn size_of(self) -> usize {}
pub fn align_of(self) -> usize {}
pub fn layout(self) -> crate::alloc::Layout {}
}
unsafe impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Send for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
unsafe impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Sync for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Debug for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Unpin for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Copy for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Clone for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Eq for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> PartialEq for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Ord for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> PartialOrd for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
impl<Dyn: ?Sized> Hash for DynMetadata<Dyn> {}
```
API differences from the RFC, in areas noted as unresolved questions in the RFC:
* Module-level functions instead of associated `from_raw_parts` functions on `*const T` and `*mut T`, following the precedent of `null`, `slice_from_raw_parts`, etc.
* Added `to_raw_parts`
Suggest to create a new `const` item if the `fn` in the array is a `const fn`
Fixes#73734. If the `fn` in the array repeat expression is a `const fn`, suggest creating a new `const` item. On nightly, suggest creating an inline `const` block. This PR also removes the `suggest_const_in_array_repeat_expressions` as it is no longer necessary.
Example:
```rust
fn main() {
// Should not compile but hint to create a new const item (stable) or an inline const block (nightly)
let strings: [String; 5] = [String::new(); 5];
println!("{:?}", strings);
}
```
Gives this error:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `std::string::String: std::marker::Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/const-fn-in-vec.rs:3:32
|
2 | let strings: [String; 5] = [String::new(); 5];
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::marker::Copy` is not implemented for `String`
|
= note: the `Copy` trait is required because the repeated element will be copied
```
With this change, this is the error message:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `String: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/const-fn-in-vec.rs:3:32
|
LL | let strings: [String; 5] = [String::new(); 5];
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `String`
|
= help: moving the function call to a new `const` item will resolve the error
```
Rename `optin_builtin_traits` to `auto_traits`
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
r? `@oli-obk` (feel free to re-assign if you're not the right reviewer for this)
Reduce boilerplate with the matches! macro
Replaces simple bool `match`es of the form
match $expr {
$pattern => true
_ => false
}
and their inverse with invocations of the matches! macro.
Limited to rustc_middle for now to get my feet wet.
More structured suggestions for boxed trait objects instead of impl Trait on non-coerceable tail expressions
When encountering a `match` or `if` as a tail expression where the
different arms do not have the same type *and* the return type of that
`fn` is an `impl Trait`, check whether those arms can implement `Trait`
and if so, suggest using boxed trait objects.
Use structured suggestion for `impl T` to `Box<dyn T>`.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69107
When encountering a `match` or `if` as a tail expression where the
different arms do not have the same type *and* the return type of that
`fn` is an `impl Trait`, check whether those arms can implement `Trait`
and if so, suggest using boxed trait objects.
