Migrate `TyCtxt::predicates_of` and `ParamEnv::caller_bounds` to `Clause`
The last big change in the series.
I will follow-up with additional filed issues once this PR lands:
- [ ] Investigate making `TypeFoldable<TyCtxt<'tcx>> for ty::Clause<'tcx>` implementation less weird: 2efe091705/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/structural_impls.rs (L672)
- [ ] Clean up the elaborator since it should only be emitting child clauses, not predicates
- [ ] Rename identifiers like `pred` and `predicates` to `clause` if they're actually clauses around the codebase
- [ ] Validate that all of the `ToPredicate` impls are acutally still needed, or prune them if they're not
r? `@ghost` until the other branch lands
Various impl trait in assoc tys cleanups
r? `@compiler-errors`
All commits except for the last are pure refactorings. 274dab5bd658c97886a8987340bf50ae57900c39 allows struct fields to participate in deciding whether a function has an opaque in its signature.
best reviewed commit by commit
Migrate `item_bounds` to `ty::Clause`
Should be simpler than the next PR that's coming up. Last three commits are the relevant ones.
r? ``@oli-obk`` or ``@lcnr``
Don't ICE on unnormalized struct tail in layout computation
1. We try to compute a `SizeSkeleton` even if a layout error occurs, but we really only need to do this if we get `LayoutError::Unknown`, since that means our type is too polymorphic to actually compute the full layout. If we have other errors, like `LayoutError::NormalizationError` or `LayoutError::Cycle`, then we can't really make any progress, since this represents an actual error.
2. Avoid using `normalize_erasing_regions` and `struct_tail_erasing_lifetimes` since those ICE on normalization errors, and since we may call `layout_of` in HIR typeck, we don't know for certain that we're on the happy path.
Fixes#112736
Inline before merging cgus
Because CGU merging relies on CGU sizes, but the CGU sizes before inlining aren't accurate.
This change doesn't have much effect on compile perf, but it makes follow-on changes that involve more sophisticated reasoning about CGU sizes much easier.
r? `@wesleywiser`
- Rename `create_size_estimate` as `compute_size_estimate`, because that
makes more sense for the second and subsequent calls for each CGU.
- Change `CodegenUnit::size_estimate` from `Option<usize>` to `usize`.
We can still assert that `compute_size_estimate` is called first.
- Move the size estimation for `place_mono_items` inside the function,
for consistency with `merge_codegen_units`.
Because CGU merging relies on CGU sizes, but the CGU sizes before
inlining aren't accurate.
This requires tweaking how the sizes are updated during merging: if CGU
A and B both have an inlined function F, then `size(A + B)` will be a
little less than `size(A) + size(B)`, because `A + B` will only have one
copy of F. Also, the minimum CGU size is increased because it now has to
account for inlined functions.
This change doesn't have much effect on compile perf, but it makes
follow-on changes that involve more sophisticated reasoning about CGU
sizes much easier.
Add a fully fledged `Clause` type, rename old `Clause` to `ClauseKind`
Does two basic things before I put up a more delicate set of PRs (along the lines of #112714, but hopefully much cleaner) that migrate existing usages of `ty::Predicate` to `ty::Clause` (`predicates_of`/`item_bounds`/`ParamEnv::caller_bounds`).
1. Rename `Clause` to `ClauseKind`, so it's parallel with `PredicateKind`.
2. Add a new `Clause` type which is parallel to `Predicate`.
* This type exposes `Clause::kind(self) -> Binder<'tcx, ClauseKind<'tcx>>` which is parallel to `Predicate::kind` 😸
The new `Clause` type essentially acts as a newtype wrapper around `Predicate` that asserts that it is specifically a `PredicateKind::Clause`. Turns out from experimentation[^1] that this is not negative performance-wise, which is wonderful, since this a much simpler design than something that requires encoding the discriminant into the alignment bits of a predicate kind, or something else like that...
r? ``@lcnr`` or ``@oli-obk``
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112714#issuecomment-1595653910
Merge `BorrowKind::Unique` into `BorrowKind::Mut`
Fixes#112072
Might have conflict with #112070
r? `@lcnr`
I'm not sure what's the suitable change in a couple places.
Add `implement_via_object` to `rustc_deny_explicit_impl` to control object candidate assembly
Some built-in traits are special, since they are used to prove facts about the program that are important for later phases of compilation such as codegen and CTFE. For example, the `Unsize` trait is used to assert to the compiler that we are able to unsize a type into another type. It doesn't have any methods because it doesn't actually *instruct* the compiler how to do this unsizing, but this is later used (alongside an exhaustive match of combinations of unsizeable types) during codegen to generate unsize coercion code.
Due to this, these built-in traits are incompatible with the type erasure provided by object types. For example, the existence of `dyn Unsize<T>` does not mean that the compiler is able to unsize `Box<dyn Unsize<T>>` into `Box<T>`, since `Unsize` is a *witness* to the fact that a type can be unsized, and it doesn't actually encode that unsizing operation in its vtable as mentioned above.
The old trait solver gets around this fact by having complex control flow that never considers object bounds for certain built-in traits:
2f896da247/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/candidate_assembly.rs (L61-L132)
However, candidate assembly in the new solver is much more lovely, and I'd hate to add this list of opt-out cases into the new solver. Instead of maintaining this complex and hard-coded control flow, instead we can make this a property of the trait via a built-in attribute. We already have such a build attribute that's applied to every single trait that we care about: `rustc_deny_explicit_impl`. This PR adds `implement_via_object` as a meta-item to that attribute that allows us to opt a trait out of object-bound candidate assembly as well.
r? `@lcnr`
