Implement selection via new trait solver
Implements selection via the new solver by calling into `assemble_and_evaluate_candidates`, doing a very light-weight "winnow" to choose one candidate over the others, and then re-confirming that candidate outside of the `EvalCtxt` in order to compute the information necessary for the `ImplSource`.
This selection routine is best effort -- if it receives an ambiguous response from the `EvalCtxt`, then it may return ambiguity if the work to re-confirm the goal is not "easy" -- right now, that means everything except for object and impl goals. Since we don't want to reimplement all of the work of the `compute_builtin_*` methods in the solver internals, we bail out if we encounter ambiguity more often than the old solver. This should only barely affect [method selection](f798ada7ba/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L1447)) and not codegen. It can be made more precise later if needed.
r? `@lcnr`
Revert "Suggest `x build library` for a custom toolchain that fails to load `core`"
This reverts commit b913f5593d.
CI builds with profile=nightly, causing different test output.
Making the output depend on the release channel was not a great idea and we have to be more careful with this.
I did not realize that the change could have such effects on test output but it's kinda obvious with hindsight >.<.
This reverts commit b913f5593d.
CI builds with profile=nightly, causing different test output.
Making the output depend on the release channel was not a great idea.
implement deep normalization via the new solver
together with #112869 this should remove all uses of the old solver with `-Ztrait-solver=next`.
see https://hackmd.io/V0qsUB_fTxexfQO_pcOcrg for a description of this PR. Will move that doc to the `rustc-dev-guide` after merging this.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #113253 (Fixed documentation of from<CString> for Rc<CStr>: Arc -> Rc)
- #113258 (Migrate GUI colors test to original CSS color format)
- #113259 (Suggest `x build library` for a custom toolchain that fails to load `core`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rewrite `UnDerefer`
Currently, `UnDerefer` is used by drop elaboration to undo the effects of the `Derefer` pass. However, it just recreates the original places with derefs in the middle of the projection. Because `ProjectionElem::Deref` is intended to be removed completely in the future, this will not work forever.
This PR introduces a `deref_chain` method that returns the places behind `DerefTemp` locals in a place and rewrites the move path code to use this. In the process, `UnDerefer` was merged into `MovePathLookup`. Now that move paths use the same places as in the MIR, the other uses of `UnDerefer` no longer require it.
See #98145
cc `@ouz-a`
r? `@oli-obk`
cargo update
#112865 with the tidy exemptions and tracing and syn 2 not upgraded
Additional deps:
equivalent: indexmap
errno: through rustix
errno-dragonfly: errno
nu-ansi-term: tracing
overload: nu-ansi-term
r? Mark-Simulacrum
There's currently a deadlock with tracing when RUSTC_LOG is enabled.
Downgrade tracing-core for now to avoid blocking the other updates.
syns upgrades cause some nontrivial changes in the diagnostics derive tests,
which are best dealt with in another PR.
Add `-Zremark-dir` unstable flag to write LLVM optimization remarks to YAML
This PR adds an option for `rustc` to emit LLVM optimization remarks to a set of YAML files, which can then be digested by existing tools, like https://github.com/OfekShilon/optview2. When `-Cremark-dir` is passed, and remarks are enabled (`-Cremark=all`), the remarks will be now written to the specified directory, **instead** of being printed to standard error output. The files are named based on the CGU from which they are being generated.
Currently, the remarks are written using the LLVM streaming machinery, directly in the diagnostics handler. It seemed easier than going back to Rust and then form there back to C++ to use the streamer from the diagnostics handler. But there are many ways to implement this, of course, so I'm open to suggestions :)
I included some comments with questions into the code. Also, I'm not sure how to test this.
r? `@tmiasko`
