Fixes#96319
The logic around handling co-inductive cycles in the evaluation cache
is confusing and error prone. Fortunately, a perf run showed that it
doesn't actually appear to improve performance, so we can simplify
this code (and eliminate a source of ICEs) by just skipping caching
the evaluation results for co-inductive cycle participants.
This commit makes no changes to any of the other logic around
co-inductive cycle handling. Thus, while this commit could
potentially expose latent bugs that were being hidden by
caching, it should not introduce any new bugs.
only downgrade selection Error -> Ambiguous if type error is in predicate
That is, we don't care if there's a TypeError type in the ParamEnv.
Fixes#95408
Do not use `ParamEnv::and` when building a cache key from a param-env and trait eval candidate
Do not use `ParamEnv::and` to cache a param-env with a selection/evaluation candidate.
This is because if the param-env is `RevealAll` mode, and the candidate looks global (i.e. it has erased regions, which can show up when we normalize a projection type under a binder<sup>1</sup>), then when we use `ParamEnv::and` to pair the candidate and the param-env for use as a cache key, we will throw away the param-env's caller bounds, and we'll end up caching a candidate that we inferred from the param-env with a empty param-env, which may cause cache-hit later when we have an empty param-env, and possibly mess with normalization like we see in the referenced issue during codegen.
Not sure how to trigger this with a more structured test, but changing `check-pass` to `build-pass` triggers the case that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94903 detected.
<sup>1.</sup> That is, we will replace the late-bound region with a placeholder, which gets canonicalized and turned into an infererence variable, which gets erased during region freshening right before we cache the result. Sorry, it's quite a few steps.
Fixes#94903
r? `@Aaron1011` (or reassign as you see fit)
Spellchecking compiler comments
This PR cleans up the rest of the spelling mistakes in the compiler comments. This PR does not change any literal or code spelling issues.
Add the generic_associated_types_extended feature
Right now, this only ignore obligations that reference new placeholders in `poly_project_and_unify_type`. In the future, this might do other things, like allowing object-safe GATs.
**This feature is *incomplete* and quite likely unsound. This is mostly just for testing out potential future APIs using a "relaxed" set of rules until we figure out *proper* rules.**
Also drive by cleanup of adding a `ProjectAndUnifyResult` enum instead of using a `Result<Result<Option>>`.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Properly track `ImplObligations`
Instead of probing for all possible `impl`s that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Instead of probing for all possible impls that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow up to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Remove some unnecessary clones.
Tweak output for auto trait impl obligations.
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.
improve comments for `simplify_type`
Should now correctly describe what's going on. Experimented with checking the invariant for projections
but that ended up requiring fairly involved changes. I assume that it is not possible to get unsoundness here,
at least for now and I can pretty much guarantee that it's impossible to trigger it by accident.
r? `````@nikomatsakis````` cc #92721
remove obligation dedup from `impl_or_trait_obligations`
Looking at the examples from #38528 they all seem to compile fine even without this and it seems like this might be unnecessary effort
rustc_trait_selection: adopt let else in more places
Continuation of #89933, #91018, #91481, #93046, #93590, #94011.
I have extended my clippy lint to also recognize tuple passing and match statements. The diff caused by fixing it is way above 1 thousand lines. Thus, I split it up into multiple pull requests to make reviewing easier. This PR handles rustc_trait_selection.
safely `transmute<&List<Ty<'tcx>>, &List<GenericArg<'tcx>>>`
This PR has 3 relevant steps which are is split in distinct commits.
The first commit now interns `List<Ty<'tcx>>` and `List<GenericArg<'tcx>>` together, potentially reusing memory while allowing free conversions between these two using `List<Ty<'tcx>>::as_substs()` and `SubstsRef<'tcx>::try_as_type_list()`.
Using this, we then use `&'tcx List<Ty<'tcx>>` instead of a `SubstsRef<'tcx>` for tuple fields, simplifying a bunch of code.
Finally, as tuple fields and other generic arguments now use a different `TypeFoldable<'tcx>` impl, we optimize the impl for `List<Ty<'tcx>>` improving perf by slightly less than 1% in tuple heavy benchmarks.
Normalize obligation and expected trait_refs in confirm_poly_trait_refs
Consolidate normalization the obligation and expected trait refs in `confirm_poly_trait_refs`. Also, _always_ normalize these trait refs -- we were already normalizing the obligation trait ref when confirming closure and generator candidates, but this does it for fn pointer confirmation as well.
This presumably does more work in the case that the obligation's trait ref is already normalized, but we can see from the perf runs in #94070, it actually (paradoxically, perhaps) improves performance when paired with logic that normalizes projections in fulfillment loop.
Move ty::print methods to Drop-based scope guards
Primary goal is reducing codegen of the TLS access for each closure, which shaves ~3 seconds of bootstrap time over rustc as a whole.
Only mark projection as ambiguous if GAT substs are constrained
A slightly more targeted version of #92917, where we only give up with ambiguity if we infer something about the GATs substs when probing for a projection candidate.
fixes#93874
also note (but like the previous PR, does not fix) #91762
r? `@jackh726`
cc `@nikomatsakis` who reviewed #92917
