Implement support for `GeneratorWitnessMIR` in new solver
r? ```@cjgillot```
I mostly want this to cut down the number of failing UI tests when running the UI test suite with `--compare-mode=next-solver`, but there doesn't seem like much reason to block implementing this since it adds minimal complexity to the existing structural traits impl in the new solver.
If others are against adding this for some reason, then maybe we should just make `GeneratorWitnessMIR` return `NoSolution` for these traits. Anything but an ICE please 😸🧊
Tweak debug outputs to make debugging new solver easier
1. Move the fields that are "most important" (I know this is subjective) to the beginning of the structs.
For goals, I typically care more about the predicate than the param-env (which is significantly longer in debug output).
For canonicalized things, I typically care more about what is *being* canonicalized.
For a canonical response, I typically care about the response -- or at least, it's typically useful to put it first since it's short and affects the whether the solver recurses or not...
2. Add some more debug and instrument calls to functions to add more structure to tracing lines.
r? `@oli-obk` or `@BoxyUwU` (since I think `@lcnr` is on holiday)
Remove `intercrate` and `mark_ambiguous` from `TypeRelation`
Fixes#109863
Pulls this logic into `super_combine_tys`, which has access to `InferCtxt` and takes a `ObligationEmittingRelation` -- both of which simplify the logic here.
r? `@oli-obk` `@aliemjay`
This solves a regression where `0.0.cmp()` was ambiguous when a custom
trait with a `cmp` method was in scope.
FOr integers it shouldn't be a problem in practice so I wasn't able to
add a test.
Update `ty::VariantDef` to use `IndexVec<FieldIdx, FieldDef>`
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Closures always implement `FnOnce` in new solver
We should process `[closure]: FnOnce(Tys...) -> Ty` obligations *before* fallback and closure analysis. We can do this by taking advantage of the fact that `FnOnce` is always implemented by closures, even before we definitely know the closure kind.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#15
r? ``@oli-obk`` (trying to spread the reviewer load for new trait solver prs, and this one is pretty self-contained, though feel free to reassign 😸)
Freshen normalizes-to hack goal RHS in the evaluate loop
Ensure that we repeatedly equate the unconstrained RHS of the normalizes-to hack goal with the *actual* RHS of the goal, even if the normalizes-to goal loops several times and thus we replace the unconstrained RHS var repeatedly.
Alternative to #109583.
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Canonicalize float var as float in new solver
Typo in new canonicalizer -- we should be canonicalizing float vars as `CanonicalTyVarKind::Float`, not `CanonicalTyVarKind::Int`.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#9
Don't ICE on `DiscriminantKind` projection in new solver
As title says, since we now actually call `Ty::discriminant_kind` on placeholder types 😃
Also drive-by simplify `Pointee::Metadata` projection logic, and fix the UI test because the `<T as Pointee>::Metadata` tests weren't actually exercising the new projection logic, since we still eagerly normalize (which hits `project.rs` in the old solver) in HIR typeck.
r? `@lcnr` tho feel free to re-roll, this pr is very low-priority and not super specific to the new trait solver.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#14
Do not consider elaborated projection predicates for objects in new solver
Object types have projection bounds which are elaborated during astconv. There's no need to do it again for projection goals, since that'll give us duplicate projection candidatesd that are distinct up to regions due to the fact that we canonicalize every region to a separate variable. See quick example below the break for a better explanation.
Discussed this with lcnr, and adding a stop-gap until we get something like intersection region constraints (or modify canonicalization to canonicalize identical regions to the same canonical regions) -- after which, this will hopefully not matter and may be removed.
r? `@lcnr`
---
See `tests/ui/traits/new-solver/more-object-bound.rs`:
Consider a goal: `<dyn Iter<'a, ()> as Iterator>::Item = &'a ()`.
After canonicalization: `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '!1r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'2r ()`
* First object candidate comes from the item bound in the dyn's bounds itself, giving us `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '?!r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'1r ()`. This gives us one region constraint: `!'1r == !'2r`.
* Second object candidate comes from elaborating the principal trait ref, gives us `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '!1r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'0r ()`. This gives us one region constraint: `!'0r == !'2r`.
* Oops! Ambiguity!
Rename `IndexVec::last` → `last_index`
As I've been trying to replace a `Vec` with an `IndexVec`, having `last` exist on both but returning very different types makes the transition a bit awkward -- the errors are later, where you get things like "there's no `ty` method on `mir::Field`" rather than a more localized error like "hey, there's no `last` on `IndexVec`".
So I propose renaming `last` to `last_index` to help distinguish `Vec::last`, which returns an element, and `IndexVec::last_index`, which returns an index.
(Similarly, `Iterator::last` also returns an element, not an index.)
Check for overflow in `assemble_candidates_after_normalizing_self_ty`
Prevents a stack overflow (⚠️❗) in the new solver when we have param-env candidates that look like: `T: Trait<Assoc = <T as Trait>::Assoc>`
The current error message looks bad, but that's because we don't distinguish overflow and other ambiguity errors. I'll break that out into a separate PR since the fix may be controversial.
r? `@lcnr`
As I've been trying to replace a `Vec` with an `IndexVec`, having `last` exist on both but returning very different types makes the transition a bit awkward -- the errors are later, where you get things like "there's no `ty` method on `mir::Field`" rather than a more localized error like "hey, there's no `last` on `IndexVec`".
So I propose renaming `last` to `last_index` to help distinguish `Vec::last`, which returns an element, and `IndexVec::last_index`, which returns an index.
(Similarly, `Iterator::last` also returns an element, not an index.)
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #91793 (socket ancillary data implementation for FreeBSD (from 13 and above).)
- #92284 (Change advance(_back)_by to return the remainder instead of the number of processed elements)
- #102472 (stop special-casing `'static` in evaluation)
- #108480 (Use Rayon's TLV directly)
- #109321 (Erase impl regions when checking for impossible to eagerly monomorphize items)
- #109470 (Correctly substitute GAT's type used in `normalize_param_env` in `check_type_bounds`)
- #109562 (Update ar_archive_writer to 0.1.3)
- #109629 (remove obsolete `givens` from regionck)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add a builtin `FnPtr` trait that is implemented for all function pointers
r? `@ghost`
Rebased version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99531 (plus adjustments mentioned in the PR).
If perf is happy with this version, I would like to land it, even if the diagnostics fix in 9df8e1befb5031a5bf9d8dfe25170620642d3c59 only works for `FnPtr` specifically, and does not generally improve blanket impls.
stop special-casing `'static` in evaluation
fixes#102360
I have no idea whether this actually removed all places where `'static` matters. Without canonicalization it's very easy to accidentally rely on `'static` again. Blocked on changing the `order_dependent_trait_objects` future-compat lint to a hard error
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Don't elaborate non-obligations into obligations
It's suspicious to elaborate a `PolyTraitRef` or `Predicate` into an `Obligation`, since the former does not have a param-env associated with it, but the latter does. This is a footgun that, while not being misused *currently* in the compiler, easily could be misused by someone less familiar with the elaborator's inner workings.
This PR just changes the API -- ideally, the elaborator wouldn't even have to deal with obligations if we're not elaborating obligations, but that would require a bit more abstraction than I could be bothered with today.
