Don't check unnecessarily that impl trait is RPIT
We have this random `return_type_impl_trait` function to detect if a function returns an RPIT which is used in outlives suggestions, but removing it doesn't actually change any diagnostics. Let's just remove it.
Also, suppress a spurious outlives error from a ReError.
Fixes#114274
Map RPITIT's opaque type bounds back from projections to opaques
An RPITIT in a program's AST is eventually translated into both a projection GAT and an opaque. The opaque is used for default trait methods, like:
```
trait Foo {
fn bar() -> impl Sized { 0i32 }
}
```
The item bounds for both the projection and opaque are identical, and both have a *projection* self ty. This is mostly okay, since we can normalize this projection within the default trait method body to the opaque, but it does two things:
1. it leads to bugs in places where we don't normalize item bounds, like `deduce_future_output_from_obligations`
2. it leads to extra match arms that are both suspicious looking and also easy to miss
This PR maps the opaque type bounds of the RPITIT's *opaque* back to the opaque's self type to avoid this quirk. Then we can fix the UI test for #108304 (1.) and also remove a bunch of match arms (2.).
Fixes#108304
r? `@spastorino`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114099 (privacy: no nominal visibility for assoc fns )
- #114128 (When flushing delayed span bugs, write to the ICE dump file even if it doesn't exist)
- #114138 (Adjust spans correctly for fn -> method suggestion)
- #114146 (Skip reporting item name when checking RPITIT GAT's associated type bounds hold)
- #114147 (Insert RPITITs that were shadowed by missing ADTs that resolve to [type error])
- #114155 (Replace a lazy `RefCell<Option<T>>` with `OnceCell<T>`)
- #114164 (Add regression test for `--cap-lints allow` and trait bounds warning)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Double check that hidden types match the expected hidden type
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113278 specifically, but I left a TODO for where we should also add some hardening.
It feels a bit like papering over the issue, but at least this way we don't get unsoundness, but just surprising errors. Errors will be improved and given spans before this PR lands.
r? `@compiler-errors` `@lcnr`
Remove Scope::Elision from bound-vars resolution.
This scope is a remnant of HIR-based lifetime resolution.
It's only role was to ensure that object lifetime resolution falled back to `'static`. This can be done using `ObjectLifetimeDefault` scope.
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
| ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
Querify unused trait check.
This code transitively loads information for all bodies, and from resolutions. As it does not return a value, it should be beneficial to have it as a query.
Properly document `lifetime_mapping` in `OpaqueTy`
Also use an `Option` to signify that the value is actually present, instead of just no captured lifetimes.
Make it clearer that we're just checking for an RPITIT
Tiny nit to use `is_impl_trait_in_trait` more, to make it clearer that we're just checking whether a def-id is an RPITIT, rather than doing something meaningful with the `opt_rpitit_info`.
r? `@spastorino`
