Various minor Idx-related tweaks
Nothing particularly exciting here, but a couple of things I noticed as I was looking for more index conversions to simplify.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
don't uniquify regions when canonicalizing
uniquifying causes a bunch of issues, most notably it causes `AliasEq(<?x as Trait<'a>>::Assoc, <?x as Trait<'a>>::Assoc)` to result in ambiguity because both `normalizes-to` paths result in ambiguity and substs equate should trivially succeed but doesn't because we uniquified `'a` to two different regions.
I originally added uniquification to make it easier to deal with requirement 6 from the dev-guide: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/solve/trait-solving.html#requirements
> ### 6. Trait solving must be (free) lifetime agnostic
>
> Trait solving during codegen should have the same result as during typeck. As we erase
> all free regions during codegen we must not rely on them during typeck. A noteworthy example
> is special behavior for `'static`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/1671
Relying on regions being identical may cause ICE during MIR typeck, but even without this PR we can end up relying on that as type inference vars can resolve to types which contain an identical region. Let's land this and deal with any ICE that crop up as we go. Will look at this issue again before stabilization.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Split implied and super predicate queries, then allow elaborator to filter only supertraits
Split the `super_predicates_of` query into a new `implied_predicates_of` query. The former now only returns the *real* supertraits of a trait alias, and the latter now returns the implied predicates (which include all of the `where` clauses of the trait alias). The behavior of these queries is identical for regular traits.
Now that the two queries are split, we can add a new filter method to the elaborator, `filter_only_self()`, which can be used in instances that we need only the *supertrait* predicates, such as during the elaboration used in closure signature deduction. This toggles the usage of `super_predicates_of` instead of `implied_predicates_of` during elaboration of a trait predicate.
This supersedes #104745, and fixes the four independent bugs identified in that PR.
Fixes#104719Fixes#106238Fixes#110023Fixes#109514
r? types
Support safe transmute in new solver
Basically copies the same implementation as the old solver, but instead of looking for param types, we look for type or const placeholders.
Enforce that `PointerLike` requires a pointer-like ABI
At least temporarily, let's ban coercing things that are pointer-sized and pointer-aligned but *not* `Abi::Scalar(..)` into `dyn*`. See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104694#discussion_r1142522073
This can be lifted in the future if we decie that we *want* to be able to coerce something `repr(C)` into a `dyn*`, but we'll have to figure out what to do with Miri and codegen...
r? compiler
Make elaboration generic over input
Combines all the `elaborate_*` family of functions into just one, which is an iterator over the same type that you pass in (e.g. elaborating `Predicate` gives `Predicate`s, elaborating `Obligation`s gives `Obligation`s, etc.)
Implement support for `GeneratorWitnessMIR` in new solver
r? ```@cjgillot```
I mostly want this to cut down the number of failing UI tests when running the UI test suite with `--compare-mode=next-solver`, but there doesn't seem like much reason to block implementing this since it adds minimal complexity to the existing structural traits impl in the new solver.
If others are against adding this for some reason, then maybe we should just make `GeneratorWitnessMIR` return `NoSolution` for these traits. Anything but an ICE please 😸🧊
Update `ty::VariantDef` to use `IndexVec<FieldIdx, FieldDef>`
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Closures always implement `FnOnce` in new solver
We should process `[closure]: FnOnce(Tys...) -> Ty` obligations *before* fallback and closure analysis. We can do this by taking advantage of the fact that `FnOnce` is always implemented by closures, even before we definitely know the closure kind.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#15
r? ``@oli-obk`` (trying to spread the reviewer load for new trait solver prs, and this one is pretty self-contained, though feel free to reassign 😸)
Freshen normalizes-to hack goal RHS in the evaluate loop
Ensure that we repeatedly equate the unconstrained RHS of the normalizes-to hack goal with the *actual* RHS of the goal, even if the normalizes-to goal loops several times and thus we replace the unconstrained RHS var repeatedly.
Alternative to #109583.
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Canonicalize float var as float in new solver
Typo in new canonicalizer -- we should be canonicalizing float vars as `CanonicalTyVarKind::Float`, not `CanonicalTyVarKind::Int`.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#9
Don't ICE on `DiscriminantKind` projection in new solver
As title says, since we now actually call `Ty::discriminant_kind` on placeholder types 😃
Also drive-by simplify `Pointee::Metadata` projection logic, and fix the UI test because the `<T as Pointee>::Metadata` tests weren't actually exercising the new projection logic, since we still eagerly normalize (which hits `project.rs` in the old solver) in HIR typeck.
r? `@lcnr` tho feel free to re-roll, this pr is very low-priority and not super specific to the new trait solver.
Fixescompiler-errors/next-solver-hir-issues#14
Do not consider elaborated projection predicates for objects in new solver
Object types have projection bounds which are elaborated during astconv. There's no need to do it again for projection goals, since that'll give us duplicate projection candidatesd that are distinct up to regions due to the fact that we canonicalize every region to a separate variable. See quick example below the break for a better explanation.
Discussed this with lcnr, and adding a stop-gap until we get something like intersection region constraints (or modify canonicalization to canonicalize identical regions to the same canonical regions) -- after which, this will hopefully not matter and may be removed.
r? `@lcnr`
---
See `tests/ui/traits/new-solver/more-object-bound.rs`:
Consider a goal: `<dyn Iter<'a, ()> as Iterator>::Item = &'a ()`.
After canonicalization: `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '!1r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'2r ()`
* First object candidate comes from the item bound in the dyn's bounds itself, giving us `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '?!r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'1r ()`. This gives us one region constraint: `!'1r == !'2r`.
* Second object candidate comes from elaborating the principal trait ref, gives us `<dyn Iter<'!0r, (), Item = '!1r ()> as Iterator>::Item == &!'0r ()`. This gives us one region constraint: `!'0r == !'2r`.
* Oops! Ambiguity!
Rename `IndexVec::last` → `last_index`
As I've been trying to replace a `Vec` with an `IndexVec`, having `last` exist on both but returning very different types makes the transition a bit awkward -- the errors are later, where you get things like "there's no `ty` method on `mir::Field`" rather than a more localized error like "hey, there's no `last` on `IndexVec`".
So I propose renaming `last` to `last_index` to help distinguish `Vec::last`, which returns an element, and `IndexVec::last_index`, which returns an index.
(Similarly, `Iterator::last` also returns an element, not an index.)
Check for overflow in `assemble_candidates_after_normalizing_self_ty`
Prevents a stack overflow (⚠️❗) in the new solver when we have param-env candidates that look like: `T: Trait<Assoc = <T as Trait>::Assoc>`
The current error message looks bad, but that's because we don't distinguish overflow and other ambiguity errors. I'll break that out into a separate PR since the fix may be controversial.
r? `@lcnr`
