We're stabilizing `async fn` in trait (AFIT), but we have some
reservations about how people might use this in the definitions of
publicly-visible traits, so we're going to lint about that.
This is a bit of an odd lint for `rustc`. We normally don't lint just
to have people confirm that they understand how Rust works. But in
this one exceptional case, this seems like the right thing to do as
compared to the other plausible alternatives.
In this commit, we describe the nature of this odd lint.
Reveal opaque types before drop elaboration
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113594
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@JakobDegen`
This pass was introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110714
I moved it before drop elaboration (which only cares about the hidden types of things, not the opaque TAIT or RPIT type) and set it to run unconditionally (instead of depending on the optimization level and whether the inliner is active)
Stabilize `impl_trait_projections`
Closes#115659
## TL;DR:
This allows us to mention `Self` and `T::Assoc` in async fn and return-position `impl Trait`, as you would expect you'd be able to.
Some examples:
```rust
#![feature(return_position_impl_trait_in_trait, async_fn_in_trait)]
// (just needed for final tests below)
// ---------------------------------------- //
struct Wrapper<'a, T>(&'a T);
impl Wrapper<'_, ()> {
async fn async_fn() -> Self {
//^ Previously rejected because it returns `-> Self`, not `-> Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
Wrapper(&())
}
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected because it mentions `Self`, not `Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
std::iter::once(Wrapper(&()))
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait Trait<'a> {
type Assoc;
fn new() -> Self::Assoc;
}
impl Trait<'_> for () {
type Assoc = ();
fn new() {}
}
impl<'a, T: Trait<'a>> Wrapper<'a, T> {
async fn mk_assoc() -> T::Assoc {
//^ Previously rejected because `T::Assoc` doesn't mention `'a` in the HIR,
// but ends up resolving to `<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc`, which does rely on `'a`.
// That's the important part -- the elided trait.
T::new()
}
fn a_few_assocs() -> impl Iterator<Item = T::Assoc> {
//^ Previously rejected for the same reason
[T::new(), T::new(), T::new()].into_iter()
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait InTrait {
async fn async_fn() -> Self;
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self>;
}
impl InTrait for &() {
async fn async_fn() -> Self { &() }
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
[&()].into_iter()
}
}
```
## Technical:
Lifetimes in return-position `impl Trait` (and `async fn`) are duplicated as early-bound generics local to the opaque in order to make sure we are able to substitute any late-bound lifetimes from the function in the opaque's hidden type. (The [dev guide](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/return-position-impl-trait-in-trait.html#aside-opaque-lifetime-duplication) has a small section about why this is necessary -- this was written for RPITITs, but it applies to all RPITs)
Prior to #103491, all of the early-bound lifetimes not local to the opaque were replaced with `'static` to avoid issues where relating opaques caused their *non-captured* lifetimes to be related. This `'static` replacement led to strange and possibly unsound behaviors (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61949#issuecomment-508836314) (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53613) when referencing the `Self` type alias in an impl or indirectly referencing a lifetime parameter via a projection type (via a `T::Assoc` projection without an explicit trait), since lifetime resolution is performed on the HIR, when neither `T::Assoc`-style projections or `Self` in impls are expanded.
Therefore an error was implemented in #62849 to deny this subtle behavior as a known limitation of the compiler. It was attempted by `@cjgillot` to fix this in #91403, which was subsequently unlanded. Then it was re-attempted to much success (🎉) in #103491, which is where we currently are in the compiler.
The PR above (#103491) fixed this issue technically by *not* replacing the opaque's parent lifetimes with `'static`, but instead using variance to properly track which lifetimes are captured and are not. The PR gated any of the "side-effects" of the PR behind a feature gate (`impl_trait_projections`) presumably to avoid having to involve T-lang or T-types in the PR as well. `@cjgillot` can clarify this if I'm misunderstanding what their intention was with the feature gate.
Since we're not replacing (possibly *invariant*!) lifetimes with `'static` anymore, there are no more soundness concerns here. Therefore, this PR removes the feature gate.
Tests:
* `tests/ui/async-await/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/async-await/issues/issue-78600.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/capture-lifetime-not-in-hir.rs`
---
r? cjgillot on the impl (not much, just removing the feature gate)
I'm gonna mark this as FCP for T-lang and T-types.
Reveal opaques in new solver
We were testing against the wrong reveal mode 😨
Also a couple of misc commits that I don't want to really put in separate prs
r? ``@lcnr``
Do not assert >1 RPITITs on collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys
Fixes#113403
Assert on collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys is not correct when we call it from type_of(GAT). The included test is an example of a situation that collector collects 0 types.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Fix generics_of for impl's RPITIT synthesized associated type
The only useful commit is the last one.
This makes `generics_of` for the impl side RPITIT copy from the trait's associated type and avoid the fn on the impl side which was previously wrongly used.
This solution is better but we still need to fix resolution of the generated generics.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Don't project specializable RPITIT projection
This effective rejects specialization + RPITIT/AFIT (usages of `impl Trait` in traits) because the implementation is significantly complicated over making regular "default" trait method bodies work.
I have another PR that experimentally fixes all this, but the code may not be worth investing in.
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
