Instantiate instead of erasing binder when probing param methods
Fixes#108836
There is a really old comment saying that a `WhereClauseCandidate` probe candidate "should not contain any inference variables", but I'm not really confident that that comment applies anymore. In contrast, other candidates that we assemble during method probe contain inference variables in their substitutions (e.g. `InherentImplCandidate`)...
Since this change is made only to support a nightly feature, I'm happy to gate the new behavior behind this feature flag or discuss it further.
r? types
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 😸🧊
Validate `ignore` and `only` compiletest directive, and add human-readable ignore reasons
This PR adds strict validation for the `ignore` and `only` compiletest directives, failing if an unknown value is provided to them. Doing so uncovered 79 tests in `tests/ui` that had invalid directives, so this PR also fixes them.
Finally, this PR adds human-readable ignore reasons when tests are ignored due to `ignore` or `only` directives, like *"only executed when the architecture is aarch64"* or *"ignored when the operative system is windows"*. This was the original reason why I started working on this PR and #108659, as we need both of them for Ferrocene.
The PR is a draft because the code is extremely inefficient: it calls `rustc --print=cfg --target $target` for every rustc target (to gather the list of allowed ignore values), which on my system takes between 4s and 5s, and performs a lot of allocations of constant values. I'll fix both of them in the coming days.
r? `@ehuss`
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 😸)
Don't ICE on placeholder consts in deep reject
Since we canonicalize const params into placeholder consts, we need to be able to handle them during deep reject.
r? `@lcnr` (though maybe `@oli-obk` can look at this one too, if he wants 😸)
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#10
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
Implement non-const `Destruct` trait in new solver
Makes it so that we can call stdlib methods like `Option::map` in **non-const** environments, since *many* stdlib methods have `Destruct` bounds 😅
This doesn't bother to implement `const Destruct` yet, but it shouldn't be too hard to do so. Just didn't bother since we already don't have much support for const traits in the new solver anyways. I'd be happy to add skeleton support for `const Destruct`, though, if the reviewer desires.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #108541 (Suppress `opaque_hidden_inferred_bound` for nested RPITs)
- #109137 (resolve: Querify most cstore access methods (subset 2))
- #109380 (add `known-bug` test for unsoundness issue)
- #109462 (Make alias-eq have a relation direction (and rename it to alias-relate))
- #109475 (Simpler checked shifts in MIR building)
- #109504 (Stabilize `arc_into_inner` and `rc_into_inner`.)
- #109506 (make param bound vars visibly bound vars with -Zverbose)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
new solver cleanup + implement coherence
the cleanup:
- change `Certainty::unify_and` to consider ambig + overflow to be ambig
- rename `trait_candidate_should_be_dropped_in_favor_of` to `candidate_should_be_dropped_in_favor_of`
- remove outdated fixme
For coherence I mostly just add an ambiguous candidate if the current trait ref is unknowable. I am doing the same for reservation impl where I also just add an ambiguous candidate.
a general type system cleanup
removes the helper functions `traits::fully_solve_X` as they add more complexity then they are worth. It's confusing which of these helpers should be used in which context.
changes the way we deal with overflow to always add depth in `evaluate_predicates_recursively`. It may make sense to actually fully transition to not have `recursion_depth` on obligations but that's probably a bit too much for this PR.
also removes some other small - and imo unnecessary - helpers.
r? types
Only implement Fn* traits for extern "Rust" safe function pointers and items
Since calling the function via an `Fn` trait will assume `extern "Rust"` ABI and not do any safety checks, only safe `extern "Rust"` function can implement the `Fn` traits. This syncs the logic between the old solver and the new solver.
r? `@compiler-errors`
feat: implement better error for manual impl of `Fn*` traits
Fixes#39259
cc `@estebank` (you gave me some advice in the linked issue, would you like to review?)
