(re-)tighten sourceinfo span of adjustments in MIR
Diagnostics rely on the spans of MIR statements being (approximately) correct in order to give suggestions relative to that span (i.e. `shrink_to_hi` and `shrink_to_lo`).
I discovered that we're *intentionally* lowering THIR exprs with their parent expr's span if they come from adjustments that are due to a parent expression. While I understand why that may be desirable to demonstrate the relationship of an adjustment and the expression that requires it, it leads to
1. very verbose borrowck output
2. incorrect spans for suggestions
Some diagnostics get around that by giving suggestions relative to other spans we've collected during MIR lowering, such as the span of the method's identifier (e.g. `name` in `.name()`), but this doesn't work too well when things come from desugaring.
I assume it also has lead to numerous tweaks and complications to diagnostics code down the road, which this PR doesn't necessarily aim to fix but may open the gates to fixing later... The last three commits are simplifications due to the fact that we can assume that the move span actually points to what is being moved (and a test).
This regressed in #89110, which was debated somewhat in #90286. cc `@Aaron1011` who originally made this change.
r? diagnostics
Fixes#113547Fixes#111016
Reveal opaques in new solver
We were testing against the wrong reveal mode 😨
Also a couple of misc commits that I don't want to really put in separate prs
r? ``@lcnr``
Do not assert >1 RPITITs on collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys
Fixes#113403
Assert on collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys is not correct when we call it from type_of(GAT). The included test is an example of a situation that collector collects 0 types.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Normalize opaques with late-bound vars again
We have a hack in the compiler where if an opaque has escaping late-bound vars, we skip revealing it even though we *could* reveal it from a technical perspective. First of all, this is weird, since we really should be revealing all opaques in `Reveal::All` mode. Second of all, it causes subtle bugs (linked below).
I attempted to fix this in #100980, which was unfortunately reverted due to perf regressions on codebases that used really deeply nested futures in some interesting ways. The worst of which was #103423, which caused the project to hang on build. Another one was #104842, which was just a slow-down, but not a hang. I took some time afterwards to investigate how to rework `normalize_erasing_regions` to take advantage of better caching, but that effort kinda fizzled out (#104133).
However, recently, I was made aware of more bugs whose root cause is not revealing opaques during codegen. That made me want to fix this again -- in the process, interestingly, I took the the minimized example from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103423#issuecomment-1292947043, and it doesn't seem to hang any more...
Thinking about this harder, there have been some changes to the way we lower and typecheck async futures that may have reduced the pathologically large number of outlives obligations (see description of #103423) that we were encountering when normalizing opaques with bound vars the last time around:
* #104321 (lower `async { .. }` directly as a generator that implements `Future`, removing the `from_generator` shim)
* #104833 (removing an `identity_future` fn that was wrapping desugared future generators)
... so given that I can see:
* No significant regression on rust perf bot (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107620#issuecomment-1600070317)
* No timeouts in crater run I did (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107620#issuecomment-1605428952, rechecked failing crates in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107620#issuecomment-1605973434)
... and given that this PR:
* Fixes#104601
* Fixes#107557
* Fixes#109464
* Allows us to remove a `DefiningAnchor::Bubble` from codegen (75a8f68183)
I'm inclined to give this another shot at landing this. Best case, it just works -- worst case, we get more examples to study how we need to improve the compiler to make this work.
r? types
Fix return type notation errors with -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty
This just adjust the way we check for RPITITs and uses the new helper method to do the "old" and "new" check at once.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Implement `Sync` for `mpsc::Sender`
`mpsc::Sender` is currently `!Sync` because the previous implementation contained an optimization where the channel started out as single-producer and was dynamically upgraded on the first clone, which relied on a unique reference to the sender. This optimization is one of the main reasons the old implementation was so complex and was removed in #93563. `mpsc::Sender` can now soundly implement `Sync`.
Note for any potential confusion, this chance does *not* add MPMC behavior. This only affects the already `Send + Clone` *sender*, not *receiver*.
It's technically possible to rely on the `!Sync` behavior in the same way as a `PhantomData<*mut T>`, but that seems very unlikely in practice. Either way, this change is insta-stable and needs an FCP.
`@rustbot` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
The type inference of argument-position closures and async blocks
regressed in 1.70 as the evaluation order of async blocks changed, as
they are not implicitly wrapped in an identity-function anymore.
Fixes#112225 by making sure the evaluation order stays the same as it
used to.
Note user-facing types of coercion failure
When coercing, for example, `Box<A>` into `Box<dyn B>`, make sure that any failure notes mention *those* specific types, rather than mentioning inner types, like "the cast from `A` to `dyn B`".
I expect end-users are often confused when we skip layers of types and only mention the "innermost" part of a coercion, especially when other notes point at HIR, e.g. #111406.
Tweak await span to not contain dot
Fixes a discrepancy between method calls and await expressions where the latter are desugared to have a span that *contains* the dot (i.e. `.await`) but method call identifiers don't contain the dot. This leads to weird suggestions suggestions in borrowck -- see linked issue.
Fixes#110761
This mostly touches a bunch of tests to tighten their `await` span.
Improve niche placement by trying two strategies and picking the better result
Fixes#104807Fixes#105371
Determining which sort order is better requires calculating the struct size (so we can calculate the niche offset). But that in turn depends on the field order, so happens after sorting. So the simple way to solve that is to run the whole thing twice and pick the better result.
1st commit is just code motion, the meat is in the later ones.
Substitute missing trait items suggestion correctly
Properly substitute missing item suggestions, so that when they reference generics from their parent trait they actually have the right time for the impl.
Also, some other minor tweaks like using `/* Type */` to signify a GAT's type is actually missing, and fixing generic arg suggestions for GATs in general.
Added diagnostic for pin! macro in addition to Box::pin if Unpin isn't implemented
I made a PR earlier, but accidentally renamed a branch and that deleted the PR... sorry for the duplicate
Currently, if an operation on `Pin<T>` is performed that requires `T` to implement `Unpin`, the diagnostic suggestion is to use `Box::pin` ("note: consider using `Box::pin`").
This PR suggests pin! as well, as that's another valid way of pinning a value, and avoids a heap allocation. Appropriate diagnostic suggestions were included to highlight the difference in semantics (local pinning for pin! vs non-local for Box::pin).
Fixes#109964
Preserve argument indexes when inlining MIR
We store argument indexes on VarDebugInfo. Unlike the previous method of relying on the variable index to know whether a variable is an argument, this survives MIR inlining.
We also no longer check if var.source_info.scope is the outermost scope. When a function gets inlined, the arguments to the inner function will no longer be in the outermost scope. What we care about though is whether they were in the outermost scope prior to inlining, which we know by whether we assigned an argument index.
Fixes#83217
I considered using `Option<NonZeroU16>` instead of `Option<u16>` to store the index. I didn't because `TypeFoldable` isn't implemented for `NonZeroU16` and because it looks like due to padding, it currently wouldn't make any difference. But I indexed from 1 anyway because (a) it'll make it easier if later it becomes worthwhile to use a `NonZeroU16` and because the arguments were previously indexed from 1, so it made for a smaller change.
This is my first PR on rust-lang/rust, so apologies if I've gotten anything not quite right.
We store argument indexes on VarDebugInfo. Unlike the previous method of
relying on the variable index to know whether a variable is an argument,
this survives MIR inlining.
We also no longer check if var.source_info.scope is the outermost scope.
When a function gets inlined, the arguments to the inner function will
no longer be in the outermost scope. What we care about though is
whether they were in the outermost scope prior to inlining, which we
know by whether we assigned an argument index.
Fix generics_of for impl's RPITIT synthesized associated type
The only useful commit is the last one.
This makes `generics_of` for the impl side RPITIT copy from the trait's associated type and avoid the fn on the impl side which was previously wrongly used.
This solution is better but we still need to fix resolution of the generated generics.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Remove tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/new-lowering-strategy in favor of using revisions on existing tests
r? `@compiler-errors`
This one again sits on top of existing approved PRs and it still needs to add revisions to tests in `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait` as it only does so for async in traits.
Remove `identity_future` indirection
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]`annotation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104826.
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]` annotation.
Don't project specializable RPITIT projection
This effective rejects specialization + RPITIT/AFIT (usages of `impl Trait` in traits) because the implementation is significantly complicated over making regular "default" trait method bodies work.
I have another PR that experimentally fixes all this, but the code may not be worth investing in.
diagnostics: remove inconsistent English article "this" from E0107
Consider [`tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`][issue-102768.stderr], the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article, like in [`tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`][issue-85255.stderr]. They don't have articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
[issue-102768.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr
[issue-85255.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
Ban associated type bounds in bad positions
We should not try to lower associated type bounds into TAITs in positions where `impl Trait` is not allowed (except for in `where` clauses, like `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>`).
This is achieved by using the same `rustc_ast_lowering` machinery as impl-trait does to characterize positions as universal/existential/disallowed.
Fixes#106077
Split out the first commit into #108066, since it's not really related.
rework min_choice algorithm of member constraints
See [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105300#issuecomment-1384312743) for the description of the new algorithm.
Fixes#63033Fixes#104639
This uses a more general algorithm than #89056 that doesn't treat `'static` as a special case. It thus accepts more code. For example:
```rust
async fn test2<'s>(_: &'s u8, _: &'_ &'s u8, _: &'_ &'s u8) {}
```
I claim it's more correct as well because it fixes#104639.
cc ``@nikomatsakis`` ``@lqd`` ``@tmandry`` ``@eholk`` ``@chenyukang`` ``@oli-obk``
r? types
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
This adds one more test that should track improvements to generator
layout, like #62958 and #62575.
In particular, this test highlights suboptimal layout, as the storage
for the argument future is not being reused across its usage as `upvar`,
`local` and `awaitee` (being polled to completion).
Especially when trying to diagnose runaway future sizes, it might be
more intuitive to sort the variants according to the control flow
(aka their yield points) rather than the size of the variants.
Don't cause a cycle when formatting query description that references a FnDef
When a function returns `-> _`, we use typeck to compute what the resulting type of the body _should_ be. If we call another query inside of typeck and hit a cycle error, we attempt to report the cycle error which requires us to compute all of the query descriptions for the stack.
However, if one of the queries in that cycle has a query description that references this function as a FnDef type, we'll cause a *second* cycle error from within the cycle error reporting code, since rendering a FnDef requires us to compute its signature. This causes an unwrap to ICE, since during the *second* cycle reporting code, we try to look for a job that isn't in the active jobs list.
We can avoid this by using `with_no_queries!` when computing these query descriptions.
Fixes#107089
The only drawback is that the rendering of opaque types in cycles regresses a bit :| I'm open to alternate suggestions about how we may handle this...
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
Suggest using a lock for `*Cell: Sync` bounds
I mostly did this for `OnceCell<T>` at first because users will be confused to see that the `OnceCell<T>` in `std` isn't `Sync` but then extended it to `Cell<T>` and `RefCell<T>` as well.
