It's not about types or consts, but the lack of regions
pulled out of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101900 which adds a fourth kind of non-lifetime generic parameter, and the naming of these methods would get ridiculous.
Fix ICE #101739
Fixes a part of #101739
This cannot cover the following case. It causes `too many args provided` error and obligation does not have references error. I want your advice to solve the following cases as well in this pull request or a follow-up.
```rust
#![crate_type = "lib"]
#![feature(transmutability)]
#![allow(dead_code, incomplete_features, non_camel_case_types)]
mod assert {
use std::mem::BikeshedIntrinsicFrom;
pub fn is_transmutable<
Src,
Dst,
Context,
const ASSUME_ALIGNMENT: bool,
const ASSUME_LIFETIMES: bool,
const ASSUME_VALIDITY: bool,
const ASSUME_VISIBILITY: bool,
>()
where
Dst: BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<
Src,
Context,
ASSUME_ALIGNMENT,
ASSUME_LIFETIMES,
ASSUME_VALIDITY,
ASSUME_VISIBILITY,
>,
{}
}
fn via_const() {
struct Context;
#[repr(C)] struct Src;
#[repr(C)] struct Dst;
const FALSE: bool = false;
assert::is_transmutable::<Src, Dst, Context, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE>();
}
```
Move lint level source explanation to the bottom
So, uhhhhh
r? `@estebank`
## User-facing change
"note: `#[warn(...)]` on by default" and such are moved to the bottom of the diagnostic:
```diff
- = note: `#[warn(unsupported_calling_conventions)]` on by default
= warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
= note: for more information, see issue #87678 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87678>
+ = note: `#[warn(unsupported_calling_conventions)]` on by default
```
Why warning is enabled is the least important thing, so it shouldn't be the first note the user reads, IMO.
## Developer-facing change
`struct_span_lint` and similar methods have a different signature.
Before: `..., impl for<'a> FnOnce(LintDiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>)`
After: `..., impl Into<DiagnosticMessage>, impl for<'a, 'b> FnOnce(&'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>) -> &'b mut DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>`
The reason for this is that `struct_span_lint` needs to edit the diagnostic _after_ `decorate` closure is called. This also makes lint code a little bit nicer in my opinion.
Another option is to use `impl for<'a> FnOnce(LintDiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>) -> DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ()>` altough I don't _really_ see reasons to do `let lint = lint.build(message)` everywhere.
## Subtle problem
By moving the message outside of the closure (that may not be called if the lint is disabled) `format!(...)` is executed earlier, possibly formatting `Ty` which may call a query that trims paths that crashes the compiler if there were no warnings...
I don't think it's that big of a deal, considering that we move from `format!(...)` to `fluent` (which is lazy by-default) anyway, however this required adding a workaround which is unfortunate.
## P.S.
I'm sorry, I do not how to make this PR smaller/easier to review. Changes to the lint API affect SO MUCH 😢
remove the unused :: between trait and type to give user correct diag…
…nostic information
modified: compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/error_reporting/mod.rs
new file: src/test/ui/type/issue-101866.rs
new file: src/test/ui/type/issue-101866.stderr
remove outdated coherence hack
we have a more precise detection for downstream conflicts in candidate assembly: the `is_knowable` check in `candidate_from_obligation_no_cache`.
r? types cc `@nikomatsakis`
modified: compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/error_reporting/mod.rs
new file: src/test/ui/type/issue-101866.rs
new file: src/test/ui/type/issue-101866.stderr
implied_bounds: deal with inference vars
fixes#101951
while computing implied bounds for `<<T as ConstructionFirm>::Builder as BuilderFn<'_>>::Output` normalization replaces a projection with an inference var (adding a `Projection` obligation). Until we prove that obligation, this inference var remains unknown, which caused us to miss an implied bound necessary to prove that the unnormalized projection from the trait method signature is wf.
r? types
fix a ui test
use `into`
fix clippy ui test
fix a run-make-fulldeps test
implement `IntoQueryParam<DefId>` for `OwnerId`
use `OwnerId` for more queries
change the type of `ParentOwnerIterator::Item` to `(OwnerId, OwnerNode)`
Introduce mir::Unevaluated
Previously the distinction between unevaluated constants in the type-system and in mir was not explicit and a little confusing. Probably better to introduce its own type for that.
r? `@lcnr`
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #101598 (Update rustc's information on Android's sanitizers)
- #102036 (Remove use of `io::ErrorKind::Other` in std)
- #102037 (Make cycle errors recoverable)
- #102069 (Skip `Equate` relation in `handle_opaque_type`)
- #102076 (rustc_transmute: fix big-endian discriminants)
- #102107 (Add missing space between notable trait tooltip and where clause)
- #102119 (Fix a typo “pararmeter” in error message)
- #102131 (Added which number is computed in compute_float.)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make cycle errors recoverable
In particular, this allows rustdoc to recover from cycle errors when normalizing associated types for documentation.
In the past, ```@jackh726``` has said we need to be careful about overflow errors: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91430#issuecomment-983997013
> Off the top of my head, we definitely should be careful about treating overflow errors the same as
"not implemented for some reason" errors. Otherwise, you could end up with behavior that is
different depending on recursion depth. But, that might be context-dependent.
But cycle errors should be safe to unconditionally report; they don't depend on the recursion depth, they will always be an error whenever they're encountered.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81091.
r? ```@lcnr``` cc ```@matthewjasper```
Normalize opaques w/ bound vars
First, we reenable normalization of opaque types with escaping late bound regions to fix rust-lang/miri#2433. This essentially reverts #89285.
Second, we mitigate the perf regression found in #88862 by simplifying the way that we relate (sub and eq) GeneratorWitness types.
This relies on the fact that we construct these GeneratorWitness types somewhat particularly (with all free regions found in the witness types replaced with late bound regions) -- but those bound regions really should be treated as existential regions, not universal ones. Those two facts leads me to believe that we do not need to use the full `higher_ranked_sub` machinery to relate two generator witnesses. I'm pretty confident that this is correct, but I'm glad to discuss this further.
FIX - ambiguous Diagnostic link in docs
UPDATE - rename diagnostic_items to IntoDiagnostic and AddToDiagnostic
[Gardening] FIX - formatting via `x fmt`
FIX - rebase conflicts. NOTE: Confirm wheather or not we want to handle TargetDataLayoutErrorsWrapper this way
DELETE - unneeded allow attributes in Handler method
FIX - broken test
FIX - Rebase conflict
UPDATE - rename residual _SessionDiagnostic and fix LintDiag link
a fn pointer doesn't implement `Fn`/`FnMut`/`FnOnce` if its return type isn't sized
I stumbled upon #83915 which hasn't received much attention recently, and I wanted to revive it since this is one existing soundness hole that seems pretty easy to fix.
I'm not actually sure that the [alternative approach described here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83915#issuecomment-823643322) is sufficient, given the `src/test/ui/function-pointer/unsized-ret.rs` example I provided below. Rebasing the branch mentioned in that comment and testing that UI test, it seems that we actually end up only observing that `str: !Sized` during monomorphization, whereupon we ICE. Even if we were to fix that ICE, ideally we'd be raising an error that a fn pointer is being used badly during _typecheck_ instead of monomorphization, hence adapting the original approach in #83915.
I am happy to close this if people would prefer we rebase the original PR and land that -- I am partly opening to be annoying and get people thinking about this unsoundness again ❤️😸
cc: `@estebank` and `@nikomatsakis`
r? types
Here's a link to the thread: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/144729-t-types/topic/PR.20.2383915/near/235421351 for more context.
In particular, this allows rustdoc to recover from cycle errors when normalizing associated types for documentation.
In the past, `@jackh726` has said we need to be careful about overflow errors:
> Off the top of my head, we definitely should be careful about treating overflow errors the same as
"not implemented for some reason" errors. Otherwise, you could end up with behavior that is
different depending on recursion depth. But, that might be context-dependent.
But cycle errors should be safe to unconditionally report; they don't depend on the recursion depth, they will always be an error whenever they're encountered.
