Pass list of defineable opaque types into canonical queries
This eliminates `DefiningAnchor::Bubble` for good and brings the old solver closer to the new one wrt cycles and nested obligations. At that point the difference between `DefiningAnchor::Bind([])` and `DefiningAnchor::Error` was academic. We only used the difference for some sanity checks, which actually had to be worked around in places, so I just removed `DefiningAnchor` entirely and just stored the list of opaques that may be defined.
fixes#108498
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116877
* [x] run crater
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122077#issuecomment-2013293931
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
compiler: fix few unused_peekable and needless_pass_by_ref_mut clippy lints
This fixes few instances of `unused_peekable` and `needless_pass_by_ref_mut`. While i expected to fix more warnings, `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` produced too much for one PR, so i stopped here.
Better reviewed commit by commit, as fixes splitted by chunks.
Match ergonomics 2024: implement mutable by-reference bindings
Implements the mutable by-reference bindings portion of match ergonomics 2024 (#123076), with the `mut ref`/`mut ref mut` syntax, under feature gate `mut_ref`.
r? `@Nadrieril`
`@rustbot` label A-patterns A-edition-2024
maybe bug here?
warning: this argument is a mutable reference, but not used mutably
--> compiler\rustc_borrowck\src\diagnostics\conflict_errors.rs:3857:35
|
3857 | pub(crate) fn emit(&self, cx: &mut MirBorrowckCtxt<'_, 'tcx>, diag: &mut Diag<'_>) -> String {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: consider changing to: `&MirBorrowckCtxt<'_, 'tcx>`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_pass_by_ref_mut
warning: this argument is a mutable reference, but not used mutably
--> compiler\rustc_borrowck\src\type_check\liveness\trace.rs:601:17
|
601 | typeck: &mut TypeChecker<'_, 'tcx>,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: consider changing to: `&TypeChecker<'_, 'tcx>`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_pass_by_ref_mut
... even when the existential has the least RegionVid.
universal regions (of root universe) > placeholders > existentials
The previous behavior, that chooses the minimal RegionVid index, naturally prefers universal regions over others
because they always have the least RegionVids, but there was no guranteed ordering between placeholders and existentials.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Strip placeholders from hidden types before remapping generic parameter
When remapping generic parameters in the hidden type to the generic parameters of the definition of the opaque, we assume that placeholders cannot exist. Instead of just patching that site, I decided to handle it earlier, directly in `infer_opaque_types`, where we are already doing all the careful lifetime handling.
fixes#122694
the reason that ICE now occurred was that we stopped treating `operation` as being in the defining scope, so the TAIT became part of the hidden type of the `async fn`'s opaque type instead of just bailing out as ambiguos
I think
```rust
use std::future::Future;
mod foo {
type FutNothing<'a> = impl 'a + Future<Output = ()>;
//~^ ERROR: unconstrained opaque type
}
async fn operation(_: &mut ()) -> () {
//~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
call(operation).await
//~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
}
async fn call<F>(_f: F)
where
for<'any> F: FnMut(&'any mut ()) -> foo::FutNothing<'any>,
{
//~^ ERROR: expected generic lifetime parameter, found `'any`
}
```
would have already had the same ICE before https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121796
Split an item bounds and an item's super predicates
This is the moral equivalent of #107614, but instead for predicates this applies to **item bounds**. This PR splits out the item bounds (i.e. *all* predicates that are assumed to hold for the alias) from the item *super predicates*, which are the subset of item bounds which share the same self type as the alias.
## Why?
Much like #107614, there are places in the compiler where we *only* care about super-predicates, and considering predicates that possibly don't have anything to do with the alias is problematic. This includes things like closure signature inference (which is at its core searching for `Self: Fn(..)` style bounds), but also lints like `#[must_use]`, error reporting for aliases, computing type outlives predicates.
Even in cases where considering all of the `item_bounds` doesn't lead to bugs, unnecessarily considering irrelevant bounds does lead to a regression (#121121) due to doing extra work in the solver.
## Example 1 - Trait Aliases
This is best explored via an example:
```
type TAIT<T> = impl TraitAlias<T>;
trait TraitAlias<T> = A + B where T: C;
```
The item bounds list for `Tait<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: A`
* `Tait<T>: B`
* `T: C`
While `item_super_predicates` query will include just the first two predicates.
Side-note: You may wonder why `T: C` is included in the item bounds for `TAIT`? This is because when we elaborate `TraitAlias<T>`, we will also elaborate all the predicates on the trait.
## Example 2 - Associated Type Bounds
```
type TAIT<T> = impl Iterator<Item: A>;
```
The `item_bounds` list for `TAIT<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: Iterator`
* `<Tait<T> as Iterator>::Item: A`
But the `item_super_predicates` will just include the first bound, since that's the only bound that is relevant to the *alias* itself.
## So what
This leads to some diagnostics duplication just like #107614, but none of it will be user-facing. We only see it in the UI test suite because we explicitly disable diagnostic deduplication.
Regarding naming, I went with `super_predicates` kind of arbitrarily; this can easily be changed, but I'd consider better names as long as we don't block this PR in perpetuity.
