Prefer built-in sized impls (and only sized impls) for rigid types always
This PR changes the confirmation of `Sized` obligations to unconditionally prefer the built-in impl, even if it has nested obligations. This also changes all other built-in impls (namely, `Copy`/`Clone`/`DiscriminantKind`/`Pointee`) to *not* prefer built-in impls over param-env impls. This aligns the old solver with the behavior of the new solver.
---
In the old solver, we register many builtin candidates with the `BuiltinCandidate { has_nested: bool }` candidate kind. The precedence this candidate takes over other candidates is based on the `has_nested` field. We only prefer builtin impls over param-env candidates if `has_nested` is `false`
2b4694a698/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L1804-L1866)
Preferring param-env candidates when the builtin candidate has nested obligations *still* ends up leading to detrimental inference guidance, like:
```rust
fn hello<T>() where (T,): Sized {
let x: (_,) = Default::default();
// ^^ The `Sized` obligation on the variable infers `_ = T`.
let x: (i32,) = x;
// We error here, both a type mismatch and also b/c `T: Default` doesn't hold.
}
```
Therefore this PR adjusts the candidate precedence of `Sized` obligations by making them a distinct candidate kind and unconditionally preferring them over all other candidate kinds.
Special-casing `Sized` this way is necessary as there are a lot of traits with a `Sized` super-trait bound, so a `&'a str: From<T>` where-bound results in an elaborated `&'a str: Sized` bound. People tend to not add explicit where-clauses which overlap with builtin impls, so this tends to not be an issue for other traits.
We don't know of any tests/crates which need preference for other builtin traits. As this causes builtin impls to diverge from user-written impls we would like to minimize the affected traits. Otherwise e.g. moving impls for tuples to std by using variadic generics would be a breaking change. For other builtin impls it's also easier for the preference of builtin impls over where-bounds to result in issues.
---
There are two ways preferring builtin impls over where-bounds can be incorrect and undesirable:
- applying the builtin impl results in undesirable region constraints. E.g. if only `MyType<'static>` implements `Copy` then a goal like `(MyType<'a>,): Copy` would require `'a == 'static` so we must not prefer it over a `(MyType<'a>,): Copy` where-bound
- this is mostly not an issue for `Sized` as all `Sized` impls are builtin and don't add any region constraints not already required for the type to be well-formed
- however, even with `Sized` this is still an issue if a nested goal also gets proven via a where-bound: [playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=30377da5b8a88f654884ab4ebc72f52b)
- if the builtin impl has associated types, we should not prefer it over where-bounds when normalizing that associated type. This can result in normalization adding more region constraints than just proving trait bounds. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133044
- not an issue for `Sized` as it doesn't have associated types.
r? lcnr
e15161d528