Remove use of const traits (and `feature(effects)`) from stdlib
The current uses are already unsound because they are using non-const impls in const contexts. We can reintroduce them by reverting the commit in this PR, after #120639 lands.
Also, make `effects` an incomplete feature.
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #123782 (Test that opaque types can't have themselves as a hidden type with incompatible lifetimes)
- #124580 (Suggest removing unused tuple fields if they are the last fields)
- #125787 (Migrate `bin-emit-no-symbols` `run-make` test to `rmake`)
- #126553 (match lowering: expand or-candidates mixed with candidates above)
- #126594 (Make async drop code more consistent with regular drop code)
- #126654 (Make pretty printing for `f16` and `f128` consistent)
- #126656 (rustc_type_ir: Omit some struct fields from Debug output)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
improve tip for inaccessible traits
Improve the tips when the candidate method is from an inaccessible trait.
For example:
```rs
mod m {
trait Trait {
fn f() {}
}
impl<T> Trait for T {}
}
fn main() {
struct S;
S::f();
}
```
The difference between before and now is:
```diff
error[E0599]: no function or associated item named `f` found for struct `S` in the current scope
--> ./src/main.rs:88:6
|
LL | struct S;
| -------- function or associated item `f` not found for this struct
LL | S::f();
| ^ function or associated item not found in `S`
|
= help: items from traits can only be used if the trait is implemented and in scope
- help: trait `Trait` which provides `f` is implemented but not in scope; perhaps you want to import it
+ help: trait `crate:Ⓜ️:Trait` which provides `f` is implemented but not reachable
|
- LL + use crate:Ⓜ️:Trait;
|
```
Spell out other trait diagnostic
I recently saw somebody confused about the diagnostic thinking it was suggesting to add an `as` cast. This change is longer but I think it's clearer
Harmonize using root or leaf obligation in trait error reporting
When #121826 changed the error reporting to use root obligation and not the leafmost obligation, it didn't actually make sure that all the other diagnostics helper functions used the right obligation.
Specifically, when reporting similar impl candidates we are looking for impls of the root obligation, but trying to match them against the trait ref of the leaf obligation.
This does a few other miscellaneous changes. There's a lot more clean-up that could be done here, but working with this code is really grief-inducing due to how messy it has become over the years. Someone really needs to show it love. 😓
r? ``@estebank``
Fixes#126129
Remove `DebugWithInfcx` machinery
This PR removes `DebugWithInfcx` after having a lot of second thoughts about it due to recent type system uplifting work. We could add it back later if we want, but I don't think the amount of boilerplate in the complier and the existence of (kindof) hacks like `NoInfcx` currently justify the existence of `DebugWithInfcx`, especially since it's not even being used anywhere in the compiler currently.
The motivation for `DebugWithInfcx` is that we want to be able to print infcx-aware information, such as universe information[^1] (though if there are other usages that I'm overlooking, please let me know). I think there are probably more tailored solutions that can specifically be employed in places where this infcx-aware printing is necessary. For example, one way of achieving this is by implementing a custom `FmtPrinter` which overloads `ty_infer_name` (perhaps also extending it to have overrideable stubs for printing placeholders too) to print the `?u.i` name for an infer var. This will necessitate uplifting `Print` from `rustc_middle::ty::print`, but this seems a bit more extensible and reusable than `DebugWithInfcx`.
One of the problems w/ `DebugWithInfcx` is its opt-in-ness. Even if a compiler dev adds a new `debug!(ty)` in a context where there is an `infcx` we can access, they have to *opt-in* to using `DebugWithInfcx` with something like `debug!(infcx.with(ty))`. This feels to me like it risks a lot of boilerplate, and very easy to just forget adding it at all, especially in cases like `#[instrument]`.
A second problem is the `NoInfcx` type itself. It's necessary to have this dummy infcx implementation since we often want to print types outside of the scope of a valid `Infcx`. Right now, `NoInfcx` is only *partially* a valid implementation of `InferCtxtLike`, except for the methods that we specifically need for `DebugWithInfcx`. As I work on uplifting the trait solver, I actually want to add a lot more methods to `InferCtxtLike` and having to add `unreachable!("this should never be called")` stubs for uplifted methods like `next_ty_var` is quite annoying.
In reality, I actually only *really* care about the second problem -- we could, perhaps, instead just try to get rid of `NoInfcx` and just just duplicate `Debug` and `DebugWithInfcx` for most types. If we're okay with duplicating all these implementations (though most of them would just be trivial `#[derive(Debug, DebugWithInfcx)]`), I'd be okay with that too 🤔
r? `@BoxyUwU` `@lcnr` would like to know your thoughts -- happy to discuss this further, mainly trying to bring this problem up
[^1]: Which in my experience is only really necessary when we're debugging things like generalizer bugs.
Cleanup: HIR ty lowering: Consolidate the places that do assoc item probing & access checking
Use `probe_assoc_item` (for hygienically probing an assoc item and checking if it's accessible wrt. visibility and stability) for assoc item constraints, too, not just for assoc type paths and make the privacy error translatable.
Detect pub structs never constructed and unused associated constants
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Lints never constructed public structs.
If we don't provide public methods to construct public structs with private fields, and don't construct them in the local crate. They would be never constructed. So that we can detect such public structs.
---
Update:
Also lints unused associated constants in traits.
set `has_unconstrained_ty_var` when generalizing aliases in bivariant contexts
this previously prevented the `regression-31157` benchmark from building
r? `@compiler-errors`
Use parenthetical notation for `Fn` traits
Always use the `Fn(T) -> R` format when printing closure traits instead of `Fn<(T,), Output = R>`.
Address #67100:
```
error[E0277]: expected a `Fn()` closure, found `F`
--> file.rs:6:13
|
6 | call_fn(f)
| ------- ^ expected an `Fn()` closure, found `F`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: wrap the `F` in a closure with no arguments: `|| { /* code */ }`
note: required by a bound in `call_fn`
--> file.rs:1:15
|
1 | fn call_fn<F: Fn() -> ()>(f: &F) {
| ^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `call_fn`
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
5 | fn call_any<F: std::any::Any + Fn()>(f: &F) {
| ++++++
```
Fold item bounds before proving them in `check_type_bounds` in new solver
Vaguely confident that this is sufficient to prevent rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#46 and rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#62.
This is not the "correct" solution, but will probably suffice until coinduction, at which point we implement the right solution (`check_type_bounds` must prove `Assoc<...> alias-eq ConcreteType`, normalizing requires proving item bounds).
r? lcnr
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
Always use the `Fn(T) -> R` format when printing closure traits instead of `Fn<(T,), Output = R>`.
Fix#67100:
```
error[E0277]: expected a `Fn()` closure, found `F`
--> file.rs:6:13
|
6 | call_fn(f)
| ------- ^ expected an `Fn()` closure, found `F`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: wrap the `F` in a closure with no arguments: `|| { /* code */ }`
note: required by a bound in `call_fn`
--> file.rs:1:15
|
1 | fn call_fn<F: Fn() -> ()>(f: &F) {
| ^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `call_fn`
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
5 | fn call_any<F: std::any::Any + Fn()>(f: &F) {
| ++++++
```
drop region constraints for ambiguous goals
See the comment in `compute_external_query_constraints`. While the underlying issue is preexisting, this fixes a bug introduced by #125343.
It slightly weakens the leak chec, even if we didn't have any test which was affected. I want to write such a test before merging this PR.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add `IntoIterator` for `Box<[T]>` + edition 2024-specific lints
* Adds a similar method probe opt-out mechanism to the `[T;N]: IntoIterator` implementation for edition 2021.
* Adjusts the relevant lints (shadowed `.into_iter()` calls, new source of method ambiguity).
* Adds some tests.
* Took the liberty to rework the logic in the `ARRAY_INTO_ITER` lint, since it was kind of confusing.
Based mostly off of #116607.
ACP: rust-lang/libs-team#263
References #59878
Tracking for Rust 2024: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123759
Crater run was done here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116607#issuecomment-1770293013
Consensus afaict was that there is too much breakage, so let's do this in an edition-dependent way much like `[T; N]: IntoIterator`.
Rename Unsafe to Safety
Alternative to #124455, which is to just have one Safety enum to use everywhere, this opens the posibility of adding `ast::Safety::Safe` that's useful for unsafe extern blocks.
This leaves us today with:
```rust
enum ast::Safety {
Unsafe(Span),
Default,
// Safe (going to be added for unsafe extern blocks)
}
enum hir::Safety {
Unsafe,
Safe,
}
```
We would convert from `ast::Safety::Default` into the right Safety level according the context.
