E.g. in
```rust
match x {
1 => function1,
2 => function2,
}
```
we need to try coercing both to pointers. Turns out this is a special case in
rustc as well (see the link in the comment).
Divergence here means that for some reason, the end of a block will not be
reached. We tried to model this just using the never type, but that doesn't work
fully (e.g. in `let x = { loop {}; "foo" };` x should still have type `&str`);
so this introduces a `diverges` flag that the type checker keeps track of, like
rustc does.
Fixes a lot of false type mismatches.
(And as always when touching the unification code, I have to say I'm looking
forward to replacing it by Chalk's...)
The big change here is counting binders, not
variables (https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk/pull/360). We have to adapt to the
same scheme for our `Ty::Bound`. It's mostly fine though, even makes some things
more clear.
It improves compile time in `--release` mode quite a bit, it doesn't
really slow things down and, conceptually, it seems closer to what we
want the physical architecture to look like (we don't want to
monomorphise EVERYTHING in a single leaf crate).
To do this we need to carry around the original resolution a bit, because `Self`
gets resolved to the actual type immediately, but you're not allowed to write
the equivalent type in a projection. (I tried just comparing the projection base
type with the impl self type, but that seemed too dirty.) This is basically how
rustc does it as well.
Fixes#3249.
3385: Fix#3373 r=matklad a=flodiebold
Basically, we need to allow variables in the caller self type to unify with the
impl's declared self type. That requires some more contortions in the variable
handling. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) handling this in a cleaner way when
we switch to Chalk's types and unification code.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
Basically, we need to allow variables in the caller self type to unify with the
impl's declared self type. That requires some more contortions in the variable
handling. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) handling this in a cleaner way when
we switch to Chalk's types and unification code.
E.g. for `&{ some_string() }` in a context where a `&str` is expected, we
reported a mismatch inside the block. The problem is that we're passing an
expectation of `str` down, but the expectation is more of a hint in this case.
There's a long comment in rustc about this, which I just copied.
Also, fix reported location for type mismatches in macros.
E.g. in `match x { None => ... }`, `None` is a path pattern (resolving to the
option variant), not a binding. To determine this, we need to try to resolve the
name during lowering. This isn't too hard since we already need to resolve names
for macro expansion anyway (though maybe a bit hacky).
Fixes#1618.
