Spellchecking compiler comments
This PR cleans up the rest of the spelling mistakes in the compiler comments. This PR does not change any literal or code spelling issues.
Don't ICE when opaque types get their hidden type constrained again.
Contrary to popular belief, `codegen_fulfill_obligation` does not get used solely in codegen, so we cannot rely on `param_env` being set to RevealAll and thus revealing the hidden types instead of constraining them.
Fixes#89312 (for real this time)
Add the generic_associated_types_extended feature
Right now, this only ignore obligations that reference new placeholders in `poly_project_and_unify_type`. In the future, this might do other things, like allowing object-safe GATs.
**This feature is *incomplete* and quite likely unsound. This is mostly just for testing out potential future APIs using a "relaxed" set of rules until we figure out *proper* rules.**
Also drive by cleanup of adding a `ProjectAndUnifyResult` enum instead of using a `Result<Result<Option>>`.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Contrary to popular belief, `codegen_fulfill_obligation` does not get used solely in codegen, so we cannot rely on `param_env` being set to RevealAll and thus revealing the hidden types instead of constraining them.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95294 (Document Linux kernel handoff in std::io::copy and std::fs::copy)
- #95443 (Clarify how `src/tools/x` searches for python)
- #95452 (fix since field version for termination stabilization)
- #95460 (Spellchecking compiler code)
- #95461 (Spellchecking some comments)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Skip pointing out ambiguous impls in alloc/std crates too in inference errors
This generalizes the logic in `annotate_source_of_ambiguity` to skip printing ambiguity errors traits in `alloc` and `std` as well, not just `core`.
While this does spot-fix the issue mentioned below, it would be nicer to generalize this logic, for example to detect when the trait predicate's `self_ty` has any numerical inference variables. Is it worthwhile to scrap this solution for one like that?
Fixes#93450
r? `@estebank`
feel free to reassign
Remove `Session::one_time_diagnostic`
This is untracked mutable state, which modified the behaviour of queries.
It was used for 2 things: some full-blown errors, but mostly for lint declaration notes ("the lint level is defined here" notes).
It is replaced by the diagnostic deduplication infra which already exists in the diagnostic emitter.
A new diagnostic level `OnceNote` is introduced specifically for lint notes, to deduplicate subdiagnostics.
As a drive-by, diagnostic emission takes a `&mut` to allow dropping the `SubDiagnostic`s.
Swap DtorckConstraint to DropckConstraint
This change was made as per suspicion that this struct was never renamed after consistent use of DropCk.
This also clarifies the meaning behind the name of this structure.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94310
This change was made as per suspicion that this struct was never renamed after consistent use of DropCk.
This also clarifies the meaning behind the name of this structure.
Change Thir to lazily create constants
To allow `AbstractConst`s to work with the previous thir changes we made and those we want to make, i.e. to avoid problems due to `ValTree` and `ConstValue` conversions, we instead switch to a thir representation for constants that allows us to lazily create constants.
r? `@oli-obk`
Properly track `ImplObligations`
Instead of probing for all possible `impl`s that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Instead of probing for all possible impls that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow up to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Remove some unnecessary clones.
Tweak output for auto trait impl obligations.
Better errors when a Copy impl on a Struct is not self-consistent
As discovered in a Zulip thread with `@nnethercote` and `@Mark-Simulacrum,` it's not immediately obvious why a field on an ADT doesn't implement `Copy`. This PR attempts to give slightly more detailed information by spinning up a fulfillment context to try to dig down and discover transitive fulfillment errors that cause `is_copy_modulo_regions` to fail on a ADT field.
The error message still kinda sucks, but should only show up in the case that an existing error message was totally missing... so I think it's a good compromise for now?
