Make proof tree probing and `Candidate`/`CandidateSource` generic over interner
`<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` is ugly, but will become `<I>` when things actually become generic.
r? lcnr
Check that alias-relate terms are WF if reporting an error in alias-relate
Check that each of the left/right term is WF when deriving a best error obligation for an alias-relate goal. This will make sure that given `<i32 as NotImplemented>::Assoc = ()` will drill down into `i32: NotImplemented` since we currently treat the projection as rigid.
r? lcnr
Use a consistent way to filter out bounds instead of splitting it into three places
just a small cleanup, no logic change.
Initially the code had me looking for why anything was special here, only to realize there's nothing interesting going on
Use `Variance` glob imported variants everywhere
Fully commit to using the globbed variance. Could be convinced the other way, and change this PR to not use the globbed variants anywhere, but I'd rather we do one or the other.
r? lcnr
Harmonize using root or leaf obligation in trait error reporting
When #121826 changed the error reporting to use root obligation and not the leafmost obligation, it didn't actually make sure that all the other diagnostics helper functions used the right obligation.
Specifically, when reporting similar impl candidates we are looking for impls of the root obligation, but trying to match them against the trait ref of the leaf obligation.
This does a few other miscellaneous changes. There's a lot more clean-up that could be done here, but working with this code is really grief-inducing due to how messy it has become over the years. Someone really needs to show it love. 😓
r? ``@estebank``
Fixes#126129
Use `tidy` to sort crate attributes for all compiler crates.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g. `allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes), sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates, increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`, because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
r? `@davidtwco`
For E0277 suggest adding `Result` return type for function when using QuestionMark `?` in the body.
Adding suggestions for following function in E0277.
```rust
fn main() {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
}
```
to
```rust
fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
return Ok(());
}
```
According to the issue #125997, only the code examples in the issue are targeted, but the issue covers a wider range of situations.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Make `ObligationEmittingRelation`s emit `Goal` rather than `Obligation`
Helps avoid needing to uplift `Obligation` into the solver. We still can't get rid of `ObligationCause`, but we can keep it as an associated type for `InferCtxtLike` and just give it a `dummy` function.
There's some shuttling between `Goal` and `Obligation` that may be perf-sensitive... Let's see what rust-timer says.
r? lcnr
Only compute `specializes` query if (min)specialization is enabled in the crate of the specializing impl
Fixes (after backport) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125197
### What
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122791 makes it so that inductive cycles are no longer hard errors. That means that when we are testing, for example, whether these impls overlap:
```rust
impl PartialEq<Self> for AnyId {
fn eq(&self, _: &Self) -> bool {
todo!()
}
}
impl<T: Identifier> PartialEq<T> for AnyId {
fn eq(&self, _: &T) -> bool {
todo!()
}
}
```
...given...
```rust
pub trait Identifier: Display + 'static {}
impl<T> Identifier for T where T: PartialEq + Display + 'static {}
```
Then we try to see if the second impl holds given `T = AnyId`. That requires `AnyId: Identifier`, which requires that `AnyId: PartialEq`, which is satisfied by these two impl candidates... The `PartialEq<T>` impl is a cycle, and we used to winnow it when we used to treat inductive cycles as errors.
However, now that we don't winnow it, this means that we *now* try calling `candidate_should_be_dropped_in_favor_of`, which tries to check whether one of the impls specializes the other: the `specializes` query. In that query, we currently bail early if the impl is local.
However, in a foreign crate, we try to compute if the two impls specialize each other by doing trait solving. This may itself lead to the same situation where we call `specializes`, which will lead to a query cycle.
### How does this fix the problem
We now record whether specialization is enabled in foreign crates, and extend this early-return behavior to foreign impls too. This means that we can only encounter these cycles if we truly have a specializing impl from a crate with specialization enabled.
-----
r? `@oli-obk` or `@lcnr`
Remove the `ty` field from type system `Const`s
Fixes#125556Fixes#122908
Part of the work on `adt_const_params`/`generic_const_param_types`/`min_generic_const_exprs`/generally making the compiler nicer. cc rust-lang/project-const-generics#44
Please review commit-by-commit otherwise I wasted a lot of time not just squashing this into a giant mess (and also it'll be SO much nicer because theres a lot of fluff changes mixed in with other more careful changes if looking via File Changes
---
Why do this?
- The `ty` field keeps causing ICEs and weird behaviour due to it either being treated as "part of the const" or it being forgotten about leading to ICEs.
- As we move forward with `adt_const_params` and a potential `min_generic_const_exprs` it's going to become more complex to actually lower the correct `Ty<'tcx>`
- It muddles the idea behind how we check `Const` arguments have the correct type. By having the `ty` field it may seem like we ought to be relating it when we relate two types, or that its generally important information about the `Const`.
- Brings the compiler more in line with `a-mir-formality` as that also tracks the type of type system `Const`s via `ConstArgHasType` bounds in the env instead of on the `Const` itself.
- A lot of stuff is a lot nicer when you dont have to pass around the type of a const lol. Everywhere we construct `Const` is now significantly nicer 😅
See #125671's description for some more information about the `ty` field
---
General summary of changes in this PR:
- Add `Ty` to `ConstKind::Value` as otherwise there is no way to implement `ConstArgHasType` to ensure that const arguments are correctly typed for the parameter when we stop creating anon consts for all const args. It's also just incredibly difficult/annoying to thread the correct `Ty` around to a bunch of ctfe functions otherwise.
- Fully implement `ConstArgHasType` in both the old and new solver. Since it now has no reliance on the `ty` field it serves its originally intended purpose of being able to act as a double check that trait vs impls have correctly typed const parameters. It also will now be able to be responsible for checking types of const arguments to parameters under `min_generic_const_exprs`.
- Add `Ty` to `mir::Const::Ty`. I dont have a great understanding of why mir constants are setup like this to be honest. Regardless they need to be able to determine the type of the const and the easiest way to make this happen was to simply store the `Ty` along side the `ty::Const`. Maybe we can do better here in the future but I'd have to spend way more time looking at everywhere we use `mir::Const`.
- rustdoc has its own `Const` which also has a `ty` field. It was relatively easy to remove this.
---
r? `@lcnr` `@compiler-errors`
