Fix ICE when `yield`ing in function returning `impl Trait`
Change an assert to a `delay_span_bug` and remove an unwrap, that should fix it.
Fixes#91477
Cleanup: Eliminate ConstnessAnd
This is almost a behaviour-free change and purely a refactoring. "almost" because we appear to be using the wrong ParamEnv somewhere already, and this is now exposed by failing a test using the unstable `~const` feature.
We most definitely need to review all `without_const` and at some point should probably get rid of many of them by using `TraitPredicate` instead of `TraitRef`.
This is a continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90274.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@spastorino` `@ecstatic-morse`
Optimize live point computation
This refactors the live-point computation to lower per-MIR-instruction costs by operating on a largely per-block level. This doesn't fundamentally change the number of operations necessary, but it greatly improves the practical performance by aggregating bit manipulation into ranges rather than single-bit; this scales much better with larger blocks.
On the benchmark provided in #90445, with 100,000 array elements, walltime for a check build is improved from 143 seconds to 15.
I consider the tiny losses here acceptable given the many small wins on real world benchmarks and large wins on stress tests. The new code scales much better, but on some subset of inputs the slightly higher constant overheads decrease performance somewhat. Overall though, this is expected to be a big win for pathological cases (as illustrated by the test case motivating this work) and largely not material for non-pathological cases. I consider the new code somewhat easier to follow, too.
Type inference for inline consts
Fixes#78132Fixes#78174Fixes#81857Fixes#89964
Perform type checking/inference of inline consts in the same context as the outer def, similar to what is currently done to closure.
Doing so would require `closure_base_def_id` of the inline const to return the outer def, and since `closure_base_def_id` can be called on non-local crate (and thus have no HIR available), a new `DefKind` is created for inline consts.
The type of the generated anon const can capture lifetime of outer def, so we couldn't just use the typeck result as the type of the inline const's def. Closure has a similar issue, and it uses extra type params `CK, CS, U` to capture closure kind, input/output signature and upvars. I use a similar approach for inline consts, letting it have an extra type param `R`, and then `typeof(InlineConst<[paremt generics], R>)` would just be `R`. In borrowck region requirements are also propagated to the outer MIR body just like it's currently done for closure.
With this PR, inline consts in expression position are quitely usable now; however the usage in pattern position is still incomplete -- since those does not remain in the MIR borrowck couldn't verify the lifetime there. I have left an ignored test as a FIXME.
Some disucssions can be found on [this Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/inline.20consts.20typeck).
cc `````@spastorino````` `````@lcnr`````
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
`````@rustbot````` label A-inference F-inline_const T-compiler
This is just replicating the previous algorithm, but taking advantage of the
bitset structures to optimize into tighter and better optimized loops.
Particularly advantageous on enormous MIR blocks, which are relatively rare in
practice.
Revert "Add rustc lint, warning when iterating over hashmaps"
Fixes perf regressions introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90235 by temporarily reverting the relevant PR.
Add BorrowSet to public api
This PR adds `BorrowSet` to the public api so that verification tools can obtain the activation and reservation points of two phase borrows without having to redo calculations themselves (and thus potentially differently from rustc).
Turns out we already can obtain `MoveData` thanks to the public `HasMoveData` trait, so constructing a `BorrowSet` should not provide much of an issue. However, I can't speak to the soundness of this approach, is it safe to take an under-approximation of `MoveData`?
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Implement coherence checks for negative trait impls
The main purpose of this PR is to be able to [move Error trait to core](https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/3).
This feature is necessary to handle the following from impl on box.
```rust
impl From<&str> for Box<dyn Error> { ... }
```
Without having negative traits affect coherence moving the error trait into `core` and moving that `From` impl to `alloc` will cause the from impl to no longer compiler because of a potential future incompatibility. The compiler indicates that `&str` _could_ introduce an `Error` impl in the future, and thus prevents the `From` impl in `alloc` that would cause overlap with `From<E: Error> for Box<dyn Error>`. Adding `impl !Error for &str {}` with the negative trait coherence feature will disable this error by encoding a stability guarantee that `&str` will never implement `Error`, making the `From` impl compile.
We would have this in `alloc`:
```rust
impl From<&str> for Box<dyn Error> {} // A
impl<E> From<E> for Box<dyn Error> where E: Error {} // B
```
and this in `core`:
```rust
trait Error {}
impl !Error for &str {}
```
r? `@nikomatsakis`
This PR was built on top of `@yaahc` PR #85764.
Language team proposal: to https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/96
Don't mark for loop iter expression as desugared
We typically don't mark spans of lowered things as desugared. This helps Clippy rightly discern when code is (not) from expansion. This was discovered by ``@flip1995`` at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/7789#issuecomment-939289501.
Adopt let_else across the compiler
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
```
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
To simplify it to:
```
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
By adopting the `let_else` feature (cc #87335).
The PR also updates the syn crate because the currently used version of the crate doesn't support `let_else` syntax yet.
Note: Generally I'm the person who *removes* usages of unstable features from the compiler, not adds more usages of them, but in this instance I think it hopefully helps the feature get stabilized sooner and in a better state. I have written a [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205) on the tracking issue about my experience and what I feel could be improved before stabilization of `let_else`.
