Support default-body trait functions with return-position `impl Trait` in traits
Introduce a new `Trait` candidate kind for the `ImplTraitInTrait` projection candidate, which just projects an RPITIT down to its opaque type form.
This is a hack until we lower RPITITs to regular associated types, after which we will need to rework how these default bodies are type-checked, so comments are left in a few places for us to clean up later.
Fixes#101665
nicer errors from assert_unsafe_precondition
This makes the errors shown by cargo-careful nicer, and since `panic_no_unwind` is `nounwind noreturn` it hopefully doesn't have bad codegen impact. Thanks to `@bjorn3` for the hint!
Would be nice if we could somehow supply our own (static) message to print, currently it always prints `panic in a function that cannot unwind`. But still, this is better than before.
Check representability in adt_sized_constraint
Now that representability is a query, we can use it to preemptively avoid a cycle in `adt_sized_constraint`.
I moved the representability check into `check_mod_type_wf` to avoid a scenario where rustc quits before checking all the types for representability. This also removes the check from rustdoc, which is alright AFAIK.
r? ``@cjgillot``
Check uniqueness of impl items by trait item when applicable.
When checking uniqueness of item names in impl blocks, we currently use the same definition of hygiene as for toplevel items. This means that a plain item and one generated by a macro 2.0 do not collide.
This hygiene rule does not match with how impl items resolve to associated trait items. As a consequence, we misdiagnose the trait impls.
This PR proposes to consider that trait impl items are uses of the corresponding trait items during resolution, instead of checking for duplicates later. An error is emitted when a trait impl item is used twice.
There should be no stable breakage, since macros 2.0 are still unstable.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
cc ``@RalfJung``
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71614.
Move lifetime resolution module to rustc_hir_analysis.
Now that lifetime resolution has been removed from it, this file has nothing to do in `rustc_resolve`. It's purpose is to compute Debruijn indices for lifetimes, so let's put it in type collection.
rename `ImplItemKind::TyAlias` to `ImplItemKind::Type`
The naming of this variant seems inconsistent given that this is not really a "type alias", and the associated type variant for `TraitItemKind` is just called `Type`.
Rewrite representability
* Improve placement of `Box` in the suggestion
* Multiple items in a cycle emit 1 error instead of an error for each item in the cycle
* Introduce `representability` query to avoid traversing an item every time it is used.
* Also introduce `params_in_repr` query to avoid traversing generic items every time it is used.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #102300 (Use a macro to not have to copy-paste `ConstFnMutClosure::new(&mut fold, NeverShortCircuit::wrap_mut_2_imp)).0` everywhere)
- #102475 (unsafe keyword: trait examples and unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn update)
- #102760 (Avoid repeated re-initialization of the BufReader buffer)
- #102764 (Check `WhereClauseReferencesSelf` after all other object safety checks)
- #102779 (Fix `type_of` ICE)
- #102780 (run Miri CI when std::sys changes)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
make `compare_const_impl` a query and use it in `instance.rs`
Fixes#88365
the bug in #88365 was caused by some `instance.rs` code using the `PartialEq` impl on `Ty` to check that the type of the associated const in an impl is the same as the type of the associated const in the trait definition. This was wrong for two reasons:
- the check typeck does is that the impl type is a subtype of the trait definition's type (see `mismatched_impl_ty_2.rs` which [was ICEing](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=f6d60ebe6745011f0d52ab2bc712025d) before this PR on stable)
- it assumes that if two types are equal then the `PartialEq` impl will reflect that which isnt true for higher ranked types or type level constants when `feature(generic_const_exprs)` is enabled (see `mismatched_impl_ty_3.rs` for higher ranked types which was [ICEing on stable](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=d7af131a655ed515b035624626c62c71))
r? `@lcnr`
Suggest `==` to wrong assign expr
Given the following code:
```rust
fn main() {
let x = 3;
let y = 3;
if x == x && y = y {
println!("{}", x);
}
}
```
Current output is:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:18
|
4 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^ expected `bool`, found integer
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:8
|
4 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `bool`, found `()`
```
This adds a suggestion:
```diff
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:6:18
|
6 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^ expected `bool`, found integer
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:6:8
|
6 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `bool`, found `()`
|
+ help: you might have meant to compare for equality
+ |
+ 6 | if x == x && y == y {
+ | +
```
And this fixes a part of #97469
Suggest calling method if fn does not exist
I tried to split this up into two commits, the first where we stash the resolution error until typeck (which causes a bunch of diagnostics changes because the ordering of error messages change), then the second commit is the actual logic that actually implements the suggestion.
I am not in love with the presentation of the suggestion, so I could use some advice for how to format the actual messaging.
r? diagnostics
Fixes#102518
Suggest `.into()` when all other coercion suggestions fail
Also removes some bogus suggestions because we now short-circuit when offering coercion suggestions(instead of, for example, suggesting every one that could possibly apply)
Fixes#102415
Slightly improve no return for returning function error
Fixes#100607
The rationale is that absolute beginners will be slightly confused as to why certain lines of code in a function does not require a semicolon. (I have actually witness a beginner having this confusion). Hence, a slight rationale is added "to return this value", which signals to the user that after removing said semicolon the value is returned resolving that error.
However, if this is not desirable, I welcome any other suggestions. Thanks.
