Type inference for inline consts
Fixes#78132Fixes#78174Fixes#81857Fixes#89964
Perform type checking/inference of inline consts in the same context as the outer def, similar to what is currently done to closure.
Doing so would require `closure_base_def_id` of the inline const to return the outer def, and since `closure_base_def_id` can be called on non-local crate (and thus have no HIR available), a new `DefKind` is created for inline consts.
The type of the generated anon const can capture lifetime of outer def, so we couldn't just use the typeck result as the type of the inline const's def. Closure has a similar issue, and it uses extra type params `CK, CS, U` to capture closure kind, input/output signature and upvars. I use a similar approach for inline consts, letting it have an extra type param `R`, and then `typeof(InlineConst<[paremt generics], R>)` would just be `R`. In borrowck region requirements are also propagated to the outer MIR body just like it's currently done for closure.
With this PR, inline consts in expression position are quitely usable now; however the usage in pattern position is still incomplete -- since those does not remain in the MIR borrowck couldn't verify the lifetime there. I have left an ignored test as a FIXME.
Some disucssions can be found on [this Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/inline.20consts.20typeck).
cc `````@spastorino````` `````@lcnr`````
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
`````@rustbot````` label A-inference F-inline_const T-compiler
Implementation of GATs outlives lint
See #87479 for background. Closes#87479
The basic premise of this lint/error is to require the user to write where clauses on a GAT when those bounds can be implied or proven from any function on the trait returning that GAT.
## Intuitive Explanation (Attempt) ##
Let's take this trait definition as an example:
```rust
trait Iterable {
type Item<'x>;
fn iter<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::Item<'a>;
}
```
Let's focus on the `iter` function. The first thing to realize is that we know that `Self: 'a` because of `&'a self`. If an impl wants `Self::Item` to contain any data with references, then those references must be derived from `&'a self`. Thus, they must live only as long as `'a`. Furthermore, because of the `Self: 'a` implied bound, they must live only as long as `Self`. Since it's `'a` is used in place of `'x`, it is reasonable to assume that any value of `Self::Item<'x>`, and thus `'x`, will only be able to live as long as `Self`. Therefore, we require this bound on `Item` in the trait.
As another example:
```rust
trait Deserializer<T> {
type Out<'x>;
fn deserialize<'a>(&self, input: &'a T) -> Self::Out<'a>;
}
```
The intuition is similar here, except rather than a `Self: 'a` implied bound, we have a `T: 'a` implied bound. Thus, the data on `Self::Out<'a>` is derived from `&'a T`, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the lifetime `'x` will always be less than `T`.
## Implementation Algorithm ##
* Given a GAT `<P0 as Trait<P1..Pi>>::G<Pi...Pn>` declared as `trait T<A1..Ai> for A0 { type G<Ai...An>; }` used in return type of one associated function `F`
* Given env `E` (including implied bounds) for `F`
* For each lifetime parameter `'a` in `P0...Pn`:
* For each other type parameter `Pi != 'a` in `P0...Pn`: // FIXME: this include of lifetime parameters too
* If `E => (P: 'a)`:
* Require where clause `Ai: 'a`
## Follow-up questions ##
* What should we do when we don't pass params exactly?
For this example:
```rust
trait Des {
type Out<'x, D>;
fn des<'z, T>(&self, data: &'z Wrap<T>) -> Self::Out<'z, Wrap<T>>;
}
```
Should we be requiring a `D: 'x` clause? We pass `Wrap<T>` as `D` and `'z` as `'x`, and should be able to prove that `Wrap<T>: 'z`.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Suggest adding a new lifetime parameter when two elided lifetimes should match up but don't
Issue #90170
This also changes the tests introduced by the previous commits because of another rustc issue (#90258)
Revert "Add rustc lint, warning when iterating over hashmaps"
Fixes perf regressions introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90235 by temporarily reverting the relevant PR.
Implement coherence checks for negative trait impls
The main purpose of this PR is to be able to [move Error trait to core](https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/3).
This feature is necessary to handle the following from impl on box.
```rust
impl From<&str> for Box<dyn Error> { ... }
```
Without having negative traits affect coherence moving the error trait into `core` and moving that `From` impl to `alloc` will cause the from impl to no longer compiler because of a potential future incompatibility. The compiler indicates that `&str` _could_ introduce an `Error` impl in the future, and thus prevents the `From` impl in `alloc` that would cause overlap with `From<E: Error> for Box<dyn Error>`. Adding `impl !Error for &str {}` with the negative trait coherence feature will disable this error by encoding a stability guarantee that `&str` will never implement `Error`, making the `From` impl compile.
We would have this in `alloc`:
```rust
impl From<&str> for Box<dyn Error> {} // A
impl<E> From<E> for Box<dyn Error> where E: Error {} // B
```
and this in `core`:
```rust
trait Error {}
impl !Error for &str {}
```
r? `@nikomatsakis`
This PR was built on top of `@yaahc` PR #85764.
Language team proposal: to https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/96
Remove hir::map::blocks and use FnKind instead
The principal tool is `FnLikeNode`, which is not often used and can be easily implemented using `rustc_hir::intravisit::FnKind`.
Adopt let_else across the compiler
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
```
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
To simplify it to:
```
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
By adopting the `let_else` feature (cc #87335).
The PR also updates the syn crate because the currently used version of the crate doesn't support `let_else` syntax yet.
Note: Generally I'm the person who *removes* usages of unstable features from the compiler, not adds more usages of them, but in this instance I think it hopefully helps the feature get stabilized sooner and in a better state. I have written a [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205) on the tracking issue about my experience and what I feel could be improved before stabilization of `let_else`.
Remove redundant member-constraint check
impl trait will, for each lifetime in the hidden type, register a "member constraint" that says the lifetime must be equal or outlive one of the lifetimes of the impl trait. These member constraints will be solved by borrowck
But, as you can see in the big red block of removed code, there was an ad-hoc check for member constraints happening at the site where they get registered. This check had some minor effects on diagnostics, but will fall down on its feet with my big type alias impl trait refactor. So we removed it and I pulled the removal out into a (hopefully) reviewable PR that works on master directly.
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
To simplify it to:
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
By adopting the let_else feature.
Show detailed expected/found types in error message when trait paths are the same
Fixes#65230.
### Issue solved by this PR
```rust
trait T {
type U;
fn f(&self) -> Self::U;
}
struct X<'a>(&'a mut i32);
impl<'a> T for X<'a> {
type U = &'a i32;
fn f(&self) -> Self::U {
self.0
}
}
fn main() {}
```
Compiler generates the following note:
```
note: ...so that the types are compatible
--> test.rs:10:28
|
10 | fn f(&self) -> Self::U {
| ____________________________^
11 | | self.0
12 | | }
| |_____^
= note: expected `T`
found `T`
```
This note is not useful since the expected type and the found type are the same.
### How this PR solve the issue
When the expected type and the found type are exactly the same in string representation, the note falls back to the detailed string representation of trait ref:
```
note: ...so that the types are compatible
--> test.rs:10:28
|
10 | fn f(&self) -> Self::U {
| ____________________________^
11 | | self.0
12 | | }
| |_____^
= note: expected `<X<'a> as T>`
found `<X<'_> as T>`
```
So that a user can notice what was different between the expected one and the found one.
Add two inline annotations for hot functions
These two functions are essentially no-ops (and compile to just a load and
return), but show up in process_obligations profiles with a high call count --
so worthwhile to try and inline them. This is not normally possible as they're
non-generic, so they don't get offered for inlining by our current algorithm.
These two functions are essentially no-ops (and compile to just a load and
return), but show up in process_obligations profiles with a high call count --
so worthwhile to try and inline them away.
