Split refining_impl_trait lint into _reachable, _internal variants
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119535#issuecomment-1909352040:
> We discussed this today in triage and developed a consensus to:
>
> * Add a separate lint against impls that refine a return type defined with RPITIT even when the trait is not crate public.
> * Place that in a lint group along with the analogous crate public lint.
> * Create an issue to solicit feedback on these lints (or perhaps two separate ones).
> * Have the warnings displayed with each lint reference this issue in a similar manner to how we do that today with the required `Self: '0'` bound on GATs.
> * Make a note to review this feedback on 2-3 release cycles.
This points users to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718 to leave feedback.
Make it so that async-fn-in-trait is compatible with a concrete future in implementation
There's no technical reason why an AFIT like `async fn foo()` cannot be satisfied with an implementation signature like `fn foo() -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = ()> + 'static>>`.
We rejected this previously because we were uncertain about how AFITs worked with refinement, but I don't believe this needs to be a restriction any longer.
r? oli-obk
Stop bailing out from compilation just because there were incoherent traits
fixes#120343
but also has a lot of "type annotations needed" fallout. Some are fixed in the second commit.
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Wrap coroutine variant fields in MaybeUninit to indicate that they
might be uninitialized. Otherwise an uninhabited field will make
the entire variant uninhabited and introduce undefined behaviour.
The analogous issue in the prefix of coroutine layout was addressed by
6fae7f807146e400fa2bbd1c44768d9bcaa57c4c.
Merge `impl_wf_inference` (`check_mod_impl_wf`) check into coherence checking
Problem here is that we call `collect_impl_trait_in_trait_types` when checking `check_mod_impl_wf` which is performed before coherence. Due to the `tcx.sess.track_errors`, since we end up reporting an error, we never actually proceed to coherence checking, where we would be emitting a more useful impl overlap error.
This change means that we may report more errors in some cases, but can at least proceed far enough to leave a useful message for overlapping traits with RPITITs in them.
Fixes#116982
r? types
Fix AFIT lint message to mention pitfall
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116184#issuecomment-1745194387 by adding a short note. Not sure exactly of the wording -- I don't think this should be a blocker for the stabilization PR since we can iterate on this lint's messaging in the next few weeks in the worst case.
r? `@tmandry` cc `@traviscross` `@jonhoo`
We're stabilizing `async fn` in trait (AFIT), but we have some
reservations about how people might use this in the definitions of
publicly-visible traits, so we're going to lint about that.
This is a bit of an odd lint for `rustc`. We normally don't lint just
to have people confirm that they understand how Rust works. But in
this one exceptional case, this seems like the right thing to do as
compared to the other plausible alternatives.
In this commit, we describe the nature of this odd lint.
Reveal opaque types before drop elaboration
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113594
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@JakobDegen`
This pass was introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110714
I moved it before drop elaboration (which only cares about the hidden types of things, not the opaque TAIT or RPIT type) and set it to run unconditionally (instead of depending on the optimization level and whether the inliner is active)
Stabilize `impl_trait_projections`
Closes#115659
## TL;DR:
This allows us to mention `Self` and `T::Assoc` in async fn and return-position `impl Trait`, as you would expect you'd be able to.
Some examples:
```rust
#![feature(return_position_impl_trait_in_trait, async_fn_in_trait)]
// (just needed for final tests below)
// ---------------------------------------- //
struct Wrapper<'a, T>(&'a T);
impl Wrapper<'_, ()> {
async fn async_fn() -> Self {
//^ Previously rejected because it returns `-> Self`, not `-> Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
Wrapper(&())
}
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected because it mentions `Self`, not `Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
std::iter::once(Wrapper(&()))
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait Trait<'a> {
type Assoc;
fn new() -> Self::Assoc;
}
impl Trait<'_> for () {
type Assoc = ();
fn new() {}
}
impl<'a, T: Trait<'a>> Wrapper<'a, T> {
async fn mk_assoc() -> T::Assoc {
//^ Previously rejected because `T::Assoc` doesn't mention `'a` in the HIR,
// but ends up resolving to `<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc`, which does rely on `'a`.
// That's the important part -- the elided trait.
T::new()
}
fn a_few_assocs() -> impl Iterator<Item = T::Assoc> {
//^ Previously rejected for the same reason
[T::new(), T::new(), T::new()].into_iter()
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait InTrait {
async fn async_fn() -> Self;
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self>;
}
impl InTrait for &() {
async fn async_fn() -> Self { &() }
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
[&()].into_iter()
}
}
```
## Technical:
Lifetimes in return-position `impl Trait` (and `async fn`) are duplicated as early-bound generics local to the opaque in order to make sure we are able to substitute any late-bound lifetimes from the function in the opaque's hidden type. (The [dev guide](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/return-position-impl-trait-in-trait.html#aside-opaque-lifetime-duplication) has a small section about why this is necessary -- this was written for RPITITs, but it applies to all RPITs)
Prior to #103491, all of the early-bound lifetimes not local to the opaque were replaced with `'static` to avoid issues where relating opaques caused their *non-captured* lifetimes to be related. This `'static` replacement led to strange and possibly unsound behaviors (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61949#issuecomment-508836314) (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53613) when referencing the `Self` type alias in an impl or indirectly referencing a lifetime parameter via a projection type (via a `T::Assoc` projection without an explicit trait), since lifetime resolution is performed on the HIR, when neither `T::Assoc`-style projections or `Self` in impls are expanded.
Therefore an error was implemented in #62849 to deny this subtle behavior as a known limitation of the compiler. It was attempted by `@cjgillot` to fix this in #91403, which was subsequently unlanded. Then it was re-attempted to much success (🎉) in #103491, which is where we currently are in the compiler.
The PR above (#103491) fixed this issue technically by *not* replacing the opaque's parent lifetimes with `'static`, but instead using variance to properly track which lifetimes are captured and are not. The PR gated any of the "side-effects" of the PR behind a feature gate (`impl_trait_projections`) presumably to avoid having to involve T-lang or T-types in the PR as well. `@cjgillot` can clarify this if I'm misunderstanding what their intention was with the feature gate.
Since we're not replacing (possibly *invariant*!) lifetimes with `'static` anymore, there are no more soundness concerns here. Therefore, this PR removes the feature gate.
Tests:
* `tests/ui/async-await/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/async-await/issues/issue-78600.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/capture-lifetime-not-in-hir.rs`
---
r? cjgillot on the impl (not much, just removing the feature gate)
I'm gonna mark this as FCP for T-lang and T-types.
