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`
Skip reporting item name when checking RPITIT GAT's associated type bounds hold
Doesn't really make sense to label an item that has a name that users can't really mention. Fixes#114145. Also fixes#113794.
r? `@spastorino`
Still more complexity, but this allows computing exact `NaiveLayout`s
for null-optimized enums, and thus allows calls like
`transmute::<Option<&T>, &U>()` to work in generic contexts.
THis significantly complicates `NaiveLayout` logic, but is necessary to
ensure that bounds like `NonNull<T>: PointerLike` hold in generic
contexts.
Also implement exact layout computation for structs.
Streamline size estimates (take 2)
This was merged in #113684 but then [something happened](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113684#issuecomment-1636811985):
> There has been a bors issue that lead to the merge commit of this PR getting purged from master.
> You'll have to make a new PR to reapply it.
So this is exactly the same changes.
`@bors` r=wesleywiser
Resurrect: rustc_target: Add alignment to indirectly-passed by-value types, correcting the alignment of byval on x86 in the process.
Same as #111551, which I [accidentally closed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111551#issuecomment-1571222612) :/
---
This resurrects PR #103830, which has sat idle for a while.
Beyond #103830, this also:
- fixes byval alignment for types containing vectors on Darwin (see `tests/codegen/align-byval-vector.rs`)
- fixes byval alignment for overaligned types on x86 Windows (see `tests/codegen/align-byval.rs`)
- fixes ABI for types with 128bit requested alignment on ARM64 Linux (see `tests/codegen/aarch64-struct-align-128.rs`)
r? `@nikic`
---
`@pcwalton's` original PR description is reproduced below:
Commit 88e4d2c from five years ago removed
support for alignment on indirectly-passed arguments because of problems with
the `i686-pc-windows-msvc` target. Unfortunately, the `memcpy` optimizations I
recently added to LLVM 16 depend on this to forward `memcpy`s. This commit
attempts to fix the problems with `byval` parameters on that target and now
correctly adds the `align` attribute.
The problem is summarized in [this comment] by `@eddyb.` Briefly, 32-bit x86 has
special alignment rules for `byval` parameters: for the most part, their
alignment is forced to 4. This is not well-documented anywhere but in the Clang
source. I looked at the logic in Clang `TargetInfo.cpp` and tried to replicate
it here. The relevant methods in that file are
`X86_32ABIInfo::getIndirectResult()` and
`X86_32ABIInfo::getTypeStackAlignInBytes()`. The `align` parameter attribute
for `byval` parameters in LLVM must match the platform ABI, or miscompilations
will occur. Note that this doesn't use the approach suggested by eddyb, because
I felt it was overkill to store the alignment in `on_stack` when special
handling is really only needed for 32-bit x86.
As a side effect, this should fix#80127, because it will make the `align`
parameter attribute for `byval` parameters match the platform ABI on LLVM
x86-64.
[this comment]: #80822 (comment)
Rename `adjustment::PointerCast` and variants using it to `PointerCoercion`
It makes it sounds like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related casts, when in reality their just used to share a little enum variants. Make it clear there these are only coercions and that people who see this and think "why are so many pointer related casts not in these variants" aren't insane.
This enum was added in #59987. I'm not sure whether the variant sharing is actually worth it, but this at least makes it less confusing.
r? oli-obk
It makes it sound like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related
casts, when in reality their just used to share a some enum variants. Make it clear there these
are only coercion to make it clear why only some pointer related "casts" are in the enum.
