check array type of repeat exprs is wf
Fixes#111091
Also makes sure that we actually renumber regions in the length of repeat exprs which we previously weren't doing and would cause ICEs in `adt_const_params` + `generic_const_exprs` from attempting to prove the wf goals when the length was an unevaluated constant with `'erased` in the `ty` field of `Const`
The duplicate errors are caused by the fact that `const_arg_to_const`/`array_len_to_const` in `FnCtxt` adds a `WellFormed` goal for the created `Const` which is also checked by the added `WellFormed(array_ty)`. I don't want to change this to just emit a `T: Sized` goal for the element type since that would ignore `ConstArgHasType` wf requirements and generally uncomfortable with the idea of trying to sync up `wf::obligations` for arrays and the code in hir typeck for repeat exprs.
r? `@compiler-errors`
correctly recurse when expanding anon consts
recursing with `super_fold_with` is wrong in case `bac` is itself normalizable, the test that was supposed to test for this being wrong did not actually test for this in reality because of the usage of `{ (N) }` instead of `{{ N }}`. The former resulting in a simple `ConstKind::Param` instead of `ConstKind::Unevaluated`. Tbh generally this test seems very brittle and it will be a lot easier to test once we have normalization of assoc consts since then we can just test that `T::ASSOC` normalizes to some `U::OTHER` which normalizes to some third thing.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Fix elaboration with associated type bounds
When computing a trait's supertrait predicates, do not add any associated type *trait* bounds to that list of supertrait predicates. This is because supertrait predicates are expected to have the same `Self` type as the trait.
For example, given:
```rust
trait Foo: Bar<Assoc: Send>
```
Before, we would compute that the supertrait predicates of `T: Foo` are `T: Bar` and `<T as Bar>::Assoc: Send`. However, the last bound is a trait predicate for a totally different type than `T`, and existing code that uses supertrait bounds such as vtable construction, closure fn signature deduction, etc. all rely on the invariant that we have a list of predicates for self type `T`.
Fixes#76593
The reason for all the extra diagnostic noise is that we're recomputing predicates with a different filter now. These diagnostics should be deduplicated for any end-user though.
---
This does bring up an interesting question -- is the predicate `<T as Bar>::Assoc: Send` an implied bound of `T: Foo`? Because currently the only bounds implied by a (non-alias) trait are its supertraits. I guess I could fix this too, but it would require even more changes, and I'm inclined to punt this question along.
Add `ConstParamTy` trait
This is a bit sketch, but idk.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Yet to be done:
- [x] ~~Figure out if it's okay to implement `StructuralEq` for primitives / possibly remove their special casing~~ (it should be okay, but maybe not in this PR...)
- [ ] Maybe refactor the code a little bit
- [x] Use a macro to make impls a bit nicer
Future work:
- [ ] Actually™ use the trait when checking if a `const` generic type is allowed
- [ ] _Really_ refactor the surrounding code
- [ ] Refactor `marker.rs` into multiple modules for each "theme" of markers
Add ability to transmute (somewhat) with generic consts in arrays
Previously if the expression contained generic consts and did not have a directly equivalent type, transmuting the type in this way was forbidden, despite the two sizes being identical. Instead, we should be able to lazily tell if the two consts are identical, and if so allow them to be transmuted.
This is done by normalizing the forms of expressions into sorted order of multiplied terms, which is not generic over all expressions, but should handle most cases.
This allows for some _basic_ transmutations between types that are equivalent in size without requiring additional stack space at runtime.
I only see one other location at which `SizeSkeleton` is being used, and it checks for equality so this shouldn't affect anywhere else that I can tell.
See [this Stackoverflow post](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73085012/transmute-nested-const-generic-array-rust) for what was previously necessary to convert between types. This PR makes converting nested `T -> [T; 1]` transmutes possible, and `[uB*2; N] -> [uB; N * 2]` possible as well.
I'm not sure whether this is something that would be wanted, and if it is it definitely should not be insta-stable, so I'd add a feature gate.
Previously if the expression contained generic consts and did not have a directly equivalent
type, transmuting the type in this way was forbidden, despite the two sizes being identical.
Instead, we should be able to lazily tell if the two consts are identical, and if so allow them
to be transmuted.
Fixes#109543. When checking paths in HIR typeck, we don't want to check
for const predicates since all we want might just be a function pointer.
Therefore we move this to MIR constck and check that bounds are met
during MIR constck.
Constrain const vars to error if const types are mismatched
When equating two consts of different types, if either are const variables, constrain them to the correct const error kind.
This helps us avoid "successfully" matching a const against an impl signature but leaving unconstrained const vars, which will lead to incremental ICEs when we call const-eval queries during const projection.
Fixes#109296
The second commit in the stack fixes a regression in the first commit where we end up mentioning `[const error]` in an impl overlap error message. I think the error message changes for the better, but I could implement alternative strategies to avoid this without delaying the overlap error message...
r? `@BoxyUwU`
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.
Most tests involving save-analysis were removed, but I kept a few where
the `-Zsave-analysis` was an add-on to the main thing being tested,
rather than the main thing being tested.
For `x.py install`, the `rust-analysis` target has been removed.
For `x.py dist`, the `rust-analysis` target has been kept in a
degenerate form: it just produces a single file `reduced.json`
indicating that save-analysis has been removed. This is necessary for
rustup to keep working.
Closes#43606.
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 ui test for implementation on projection
The error in full can be seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107263 and is part of why the PR is blocked (it still requires the approval from the team for supporting it).
r? ``@oli-obk``
