When normalizing a projection which results in a cycle, we would
cache the result of `project_type` without the nested obligations
(because they're not needed for inference). This would result in
the nested obligations only being handled once in fulfill, which
would avoid the cycle error.
Fixes#79714, a regresion from #79305 caused by the removal of
`get_paranoid_cache_value_obligation`.
Make BoundRegion have a kind of BoungRegionKind
Split from #76814
Also includes making `replace_escaping_bound_vars` only return `T`
Going to r? `@lcnr`
Feel free to reassign
const_evaluatable_checked: fix occurs check
fixes#79615
this is kind of a hack because we use `TypeRelation` for both the `Generalizer` and the `ConstInferUnifier` but i am not sure if there is a useful way to disentangle this without unnecessarily duplicating some code.
The error in the added test is kind of unavoidable until we erase the unused substs of `ConstKind::Unevaluated`. We talked a bit about this in the cg lazy norm meeting (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/lazy_normalization_consts)
Introduce `TypeVisitor::BreakTy`
Implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#383.
r? `@ghost`
cc `@lcnr` `@oli-obk`
~~Blocked on FCP in rust-lang/compiler-team#383.~~
Add type to `ConstKind::Placeholder`
I simply threaded `<'tcx>` through everything that required it. I'm not sure whether this is the correct thing to do, but it seems to work.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Make it more clear what an about async fn's returns when referring to what it returns
see #76547
This is *likely* not the ONLY place that this happens to be unclear, but we can move this fn to rustc_middle or something like that and reuse it if need be, to apply it to more diagnostics
One outstanding question I have is, if the fn returns (), should I make the message more clear (what about `fn f()` vs `fn f() -> ()`, can you tell those apart in the hir?)
R? `@tmandry`
`@rustbot` modify labels +A-diagnostics +T-compiler
Adjust turbofish help message for const generics
Types are no longer special. (This message arguably only makes sense with `min_const_generics` or more, but we'll be there soon.)
r? @lcnr
When encountering a failing method or field resolution on a `Future`,
look at the `Output` and try the same operation on it. If successful,
suggest calling `.await` on the `Future`.
This had already been introduced in #72784, but at some point they
stopped working.
