Use `target` instead of `machine` for mir interpreter integer handling.
The naming of `machine` only makes sense from a mir interpreter internals perspective, but outside users talk about the `target` platform. As per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/108029#issuecomment-1429791015
r? `@RalfJung`
use semantic equality for const param type equality assertion
Fixes#107898
See added test for what caused this ICE
---
The current in assertion in `relate.rs` is rather inadequate when keeping in mind future expansions to const generics:
- it will ICE when there are infer vars in a projection in a const param ty
- it will spurriously return false when either ty has infer vars because of using `==` instead of `infcx.at(..).eq`
- i am also unsure if it would be possible with `adt_const_params` to craft a situation where the const param type is not wf causing `normalize_erasing_regions` to `bug!` when we would have emitted a diagnostic.
This impl feels pretty Not Great to me although i am not sure what a better idea would be.
- We have to have the logic behind a query because neither `relate.rs` or `combine.rs` have access to trait solving machinery (without evaluating nested obligations this assert will become _far_ less useful under lazy norm, which consts are already doing)
- `relate.rs` does not have access to canonicalization machinery which is necessary in order to have types potentially containing infer vars in query arguments.
We could possible add a method to `TypeRelation` to do this assertion rather than a query but to avoid implementing the same logic over and over we'd probably end up with the logic in a free function somewhere in `rustc_trait_selection` _anyway_ so I don't think that would be much better.
We could also just remove this assertion, it should not actually be necessary for it to be present. It has caught some bugs in the past though so if possible I would like to keep it.
r? `@compiler-errors`
add an unstable `#[rustc_coinductive]` attribute
useful to test coinduction, especially in the new solver.
as this attribute should remain permanently unstable I don't think this needs any official approval. cc ``@rust-lang/types``
had to weaken the check for stable query results in the solver to prevent an ICE if there's a coinductive cycle with constraints.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #105019 (Add parentheses properly for borrowing suggestion)
- #106001 (Stop at the first `NULL` argument when iterating `argv`)
- #107098 (Suggest function call on pattern type mismatch)
- #107490 (rustdoc: remove inconsistently-present sidebar tooltips)
- #107855 (Add a couple random projection tests for new solver)
- #107857 (Add ui test for implementation on projection)
- #107878 (Clarify `new_size` for realloc means bytes)
- #107888 (revert #107074, add regression test)
- #107900 (Zero the `REPARSE_MOUNTPOINT_DATA_BUFFER` header)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
correctly update goals in the cache
we may want to actually write the response for our goal into the provisional or global cache instead of simply using the result from the last iteration '^^
r? ```@rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor```
Rename `replace_bound_vars_with_*` to `instantiate_binder_with_*`
Mentioning "binder" rather than "bound vars", imo, makes it clearer that we're doing something to the binder as a whole.
Also, "instantiate" is the verb that I'm always reaching for when I'm looking for these functions, and the name that we use in the new solver anyways.
r? types
Rename `PointerSized` to `PointerLike`
The old name was unnecessarily vague. This PR renames a nightly language feature that I added, so I don't think it needs any additional approval, though anyone can feel free to speak up if you dislike the rename.
It's still unsatisfying that we don't the user which of {size, alignment} is wrong, but this trait really is just a stepping stone for a more generalized mechanism to create `dyn*`, just meant for nightly testing, so I don't think it really deserves additional diagnostic machinery for now.
Fixes#107696, cc ``@RalfJung``
r? ``@eholk``
Modify existing bounds if they exist
Fixes#107335.
This implementation is kinda gross but I don't really see a better way to do it.
This primarily does two things: Modifies `suggest_constraining_type_param` to accept a new parameter that indicates a span to be replaced instead of added, if presented, and limit the additive suggestions to either suggest a new bound on an existing bound (see newly added unit test) or add the generics argument if a generics argument wasn't found.
The former change is required to retain the capability to add an entirely new bounds if it was entirely omitted.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
