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.
4173: Use core instead of std for builtin derive macros r=edwin0cheng a=edwin0cheng
Fixed#4087.
We can't use `$crate` here right now because :
1. We have to able to detect `macro` 2.0 in collecting phase for finding `rustc_builtin_macro` attrs.
2. And we have to make hygiene works for builtin derive macro.
r= @flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
So e.g. if we have `fn foo<T: SomeTrait<u32>>() -> T::Item`, we want to lower
that to `<T as SomeTrait<u32>>::Item` and not `<T as SomeTrait<_>>::Item`.
4106: Fix wrong substitution code r=matklad a=flodiebold
We need to shift in when we're substituting inside a binder.
This should fix#4053 (it doesn't fix the occasional overflow that also occurs on the Diesel codebase though).
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
We need to shift in when we're substituting inside a binder.
This should fix#4053 (it doesn't fix the occasional overflow that also occurs
on the Diesel codebase though).
4023: Fix another crash from wrong binders r=matklad a=flodiebold
Basically, if we had something like `dyn Trait<T>` (where `T` is a type parameter) in an impl we lowered that to `dyn Trait<^0.0>`, when it should be `dyn Trait<^1.0>` because the `dyn` introduces a new binder. With one type parameter, that's just wrong, with two, it'll lead to crashes.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
Basically, if we had something like `dyn Trait<T>` (where `T` is a type
parameter) in an impl we lowered that to `dyn Trait<^0.0>`, when it should be
`dyn Trait<^1.0>` because the `dyn` introduces a new binder. With one type
parameter, that's just wrong, with two, it'll lead to crashes.
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...)
It's not entirely clear what subnode ranges should mean in the
presence of macros, so let's leave them out for now. We are not using
them heavily anyway.
