Currently, deriving on packed structs has some non-trivial limitations,
related to the fact that taking references on unaligned fields is UB.
The current approach to field accesses in derived code:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct that derives `Copy`: `&{self.0}`
- In a packed struct that doesn't derive `Copy`: `&self.0`
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for any
packed generic type, because it's possible that there might be
misaligned fields. This is a fairly broad restriction.
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for most
packed types that don't derive `Copy`. (The exceptions are those where the
alignments inherently satisfy the packing, e.g. in a type with
`repr(packed(N))` where all the fields have alignments of `N` or less
anyway. Such types are pretty strange, because the `packed` attribute is
not having any effect.)
This commit introduces a new, simpler approach to field accesses:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct: `&{self.0}`
In the latter case, this requires that all fields impl `Copy`, which is
a new restriction. This means that the following example compiles under
the old approach and doesn't compile under the new approach.
```
#[derive(Debug)]
struct NonCopy(u8);
#[derive(Debug)
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(NonCopy);
```
(Note that the old approach's support for cases like this was brittle.
Changing the `u8` to a `u16` would be enough to stop it working. So not
much capability is lost here.)
However, the other constraints from the old rules are removed. We can now
derive builtin traits for packed generic structs like this:
```
trait Trait { type A; }
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo<T: Trait>(T, T::A);
```
To allow this, we add a `T: Copy` bound in the derived impl and a `T::A:
Copy` bound in where clauses. So `T` and `T::A` must impl `Copy`.
We can now also derive builtin traits for packed structs that don't derive
`Copy`, so long as the fields impl `Copy`:
```
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo(u32);
```
This includes types that hand-impl `Copy` rather than deriving it, such as the
following, that show up in winapi-0.2:
```
#[derive(Clone)]
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(i32);
impl Copy for MyType {}
```
The new approach is simpler to understand and implement, and it avoids
the need for the `unsafe_derive_on_repr_packed` check.
One exception is required for backwards-compatibility: we allow `[u8]`
fields for now. There is a new lint for this,
`byte_slice_in_packed_struct_with_derive`.
There are two errors involving `derive` and `packed`.
```
`#[derive]` can't be derived on a `#[repr(packed)]` struct with type or const parameters
`#[derive]` can't be derived on a `#[repr(packed)]` struct that does not derive Copy
```
The second one overstates things. It is possible to use derive on a
repr(packed) struct that doesn't derive Copy in two cases.
- If all the fields within the struct meet the required alignment: 1 for
`repr(packed)`, or `N` for `repr(packed(N))`.
- If `Default` is the only trait derived.
This commit improves things in a few ways.
- Changes the errors to say `$TRAIT can't be derived on this ...`.
This is more accurate, because it's just $TRAIT and *this* packed
struct that are a problem, not *all* derived traits on *all* packed
structs.
- Adds more details to the "ERROR" lines in the test case, enough to
distinguish between the two error messages.
- Adds more cases to the test case that don't cause errors, e.g. `Default`
derives.
- Uses a wider variety of builtin traits in the test case, for better coverage.
When encountering an unsatisfied trait bound, if there are no other
suggestions, mention all the types that *do* implement that trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `f32: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:22:6
|
LL | impl Baz<f32> for f32 { }
| ^^^^^^^^ the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `f32`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Foo`:
Option<T>
i32
str
note: required by a bound in `Baz`
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:18:31
|
LL | trait Baz<U: ?Sized> where U: Foo { }
| ^^^ required by this bound in `Baz`
```
Mention implementers of traits in `ImplObligation`s.
Do not mention other `impl`s for closures, ranges and `?`.
There are a few places were we have to construct it, though, and a few
places that are more invasive to change. To do this, we create a
constructor with a long obvious name.
This one is a heavy `'tcx` user.
Two interesting ones:
This one had the `'tcx` declared on the function, despite the trait taking a `'tcx`:
```diff
-impl Visitor<'_> for UsedLocals {
+impl<'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for UsedLocals {
fn visit_statement(&mut self, statement: &Statement<'tcx>, location: Location) {
```
This one use in-band for one, and underscore for the other:
```diff
-pub fn remove_dead_blocks(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, body: &mut Body<'_>) {
+pub fn remove_dead_blocks<'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, body: &mut Body<'tcx>) {
```
