Structurally normalize weak and inherent in new solver
It seems pretty obvious to me that we should be normalizing weak and inherent aliases too, since they can always be normalized. This PR still leaves open the question of what to do with opaques, though 💀
**Also**, we need to structurally resolve the target of a coercion, for the UI test to work.
r? `@lcnr`
Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
Bubble up nested goals from equation in `predicates_for_object_candidate`
This used to be needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114036#discussion_r1273987510, but since it's no longer, I'm opening this as a separate PR. This also fixes one ICEing UI test: (`tests/ui/unboxed-closures/issue-53448.rs`)
r? `@lcnr`
update overflow handling in the new trait solver
implements https://hackmd.io/QY0dfEOgSNWwU4oiGnVRLw?view. I want to clean up this doc and add it to the rustc-dev-guide, but I think this PR is ready for merge as is, even without the dev-guide entry.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
Rework upcasting confirmation to support upcasting to fewer projections in target bounds
This PR implements a modified trait upcasting algorithm that is resilient to changes in the number of associated types in the bounds of the source and target trait objects.
It does this by equating each bound of the target trait ref individually against the bounds of the source trait ref, rather than doing them all together by constructing a new trait object.
#### The new way we do trait upcasting confirmation
1. Equate the target trait object's principal trait ref with one of the supertraits of the source trait object's principal.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2509-L2525)
2. Make sure that every auto trait in the *target* trait object is present in the source trait ref's bounds.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2559-L2562)
3. For each projection in the *target* trait object, make sure there is exactly one projection that equates with it in the source trait ref's bound. If there is more than one, bail with ambiguity.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2526-L2557)
* Since there may be more than one that applies, we probe first to check that there is exactly one, then we equate it outside of a probe once we know that it's unique.
4. Make sure the lifetime of the source trait object outlives the lifetime of the target.
<details>
<summary>Meanwhile, this is how we used to do upcasting:</summary>
1. For each supertrait of the source trait object, take that supertrait, append the source object's projection bounds, and the *target* trait object's auto trait bounds, and make this into a new object type:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L915-L929)
2. Then equate it with the target trait object:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L936)
This will be a type mismatch if the target trait object has fewer projection bounds, since we compare the bounds structurally in relate:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/relate.rs (L696-L698)
</details>
Fixes#114035
Also fixes#114113, because I added a normalize call in the old solver.
r? types
resolve before canonicalization in new solver, ICE if unresolved
Fold the values with a resolver before canonicalization instead of making it happen within canonicalization.
This allows us to filter trivial region constraints from the external constraints.
r? ``@lcnr``
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114178 (Account for macros when suggesting a new let binding)
- #114199 (Don't unsize coerce infer vars in select in new solver)
- #114301 (Don't check unnecessarily that impl trait is RPIT)
- #114314 (Tweaks to `adt_sized_constraint`)
- #114322 (Fix invalid slice coercion suggestion reported in turbofish)
- #114340 ([rustc_attr][nit] Replace `filter` + `is_some` with `map_or`.)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix invalid slice coercion suggestion reported in turbofish
This PR fixes the invalid slice coercion suggestion reported in turbofish and inferred generics by not emitting them.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110063
Detect trait upcasting through struct tail unsizing in new solver select
Oops, we were able to hide trait upcasting behind a parent unsize goal that evaluated to `Certainty::Yes`. Let's do rematching for `Certainty::Yes` unsize goals with `BuiltinImplSource::Misc` sources (corresponding to all of the other unsize rules) to make sure we end up selecting any nested goals which may be satisfied via `BuiltinImplSource::TraitUpcasting` or `::TupleUnsizing`.
r? ``@lcnr``
