Stabilize associated type bounds (RFC 2289)
This PR stabilizes associated type bounds, which were laid out in [RFC 2289]. This gives us a shorthand to express nested type bounds that would otherwise need to be expressed with nested `impl Trait` or broken into several `where` clauses.
### What are we stabilizing?
We're stabilizing the associated item bounds syntax, which allows us to put bounds in associated type position within other bounds, i.e. `T: Trait<Assoc: Bounds...>`. See [RFC 2289] for motivation.
In all position, the associated type bound syntax expands into a set of two (or more) bounds, and never anything else (see "How does this differ[...]" section for more info).
Associated type bounds are stabilized in four positions:
* **`where` clauses (and APIT)** - This is equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses. For example, `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>` is equivalent to `where T: Trait, <T as Trait>::Assoc: Bound`.
* **Supertraits** - Similar to above, `trait CopyIterator: Iterator<Item: Copy> {}`. This is almost equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses; however, the bound on the associated item is implied whenever the trait is used. See #112573/#112629.
* **Associated type item bounds** - This allows constraining the *nested* rigid projections that are associated with a trait's associated types. e.g. `trait Trait { type Assoc: Trait2<Assoc2: Copy>; }`.
* **opaque item bounds (RPIT, TAIT)** - This allows constraining associated types that are associated with the opaque without having to *name* the opaque. For example, `impl Iterator<Item: Copy>` defines an iterator whose item is `Copy` without having to actually name that item bound.
The latter three are not expressible in surface Rust (though for associated type item bounds, this will change in #120752, which I don't believe should block this PR), so this does represent a slight expansion of what can be expressed in trait bounds.
### How does this differ from the RFC?
Compared to the RFC, the current implementation *always* desugars associated type bounds to sets of `ty::Clause`s internally. Specifically, it does *not* introduce a position-dependent desugaring as laid out in [RFC 2289], and in particular:
* It does *not* desugar to anonymous associated items in associated type item bounds.
* It does *not* desugar to nested RPITs in RPIT bounds, nor nested TAITs in TAIT bounds.
This position-dependent desugaring laid out in the RFC existed simply to side-step limitations of the trait solver, which have mostly been fixed in #120584. The desugaring laid out in the RFC also added unnecessary complication to the design of the feature, and introduces its own limitations to, for example:
* Conditionally lowering to nested `impl Trait` in certain positions such as RPIT and TAIT means that we inherit the limitations of RPIT/TAIT, namely lack of support for higher-ranked opaque inference. See this code example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120752#issuecomment-1979412531.
* Introducing anonymous associated types makes traits no longer object safe, since anonymous associated types are not nameable, and all associated types must be named in `dyn` types.
This last point motivates why this PR is *not* stabilizing support for associated type bounds in `dyn` types, e.g, `dyn Assoc<Item: Bound>`. Why? Because `dyn` types need to have *concrete* types for all associated items, this would necessitate a distinct lowering for associated type bounds, which seems both complicated and unnecessary compared to just requiring the user to write `impl Trait` themselves. See #120719.
### Implementation history:
Limited to the significant behavioral changes and fixes and relevant PRs, ping me if I left something out--
* #57428
* #108063
* #110512
* #112629
* #120719
* #120584Closes#52662
[RFC 2289]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2289-associated-type-bounds.html
`NormalizesTo`: return nested goals to caller
Fixes the regression of `paperclip-core`. see https://hackmd.io/IsVAafiOTAaPIFcUxRJufw for more details.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Provide structured suggestion for `#![feature(foo)]`
```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix#55941.
never patterns: suggest `!` patterns on non-exhaustive matches
When a match is non-exhaustive we now suggest never patterns whenever it makes sense.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Reject overly generic assoc const binding types
Split off from #119385 to make #119385 easier to review.
---
In the *instantiated* type of assoc const bindings
1. reject **early-bound generic params**
* Provide a rich error message instead of ICE'ing ([#108271](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108271)).
* This is a temporary and semi-artificial restriction until the arrival of *generic const generics*.
* It's quite possible that rustc could already perfectly support this subset of generic const generics if we just removed some checks (some `.no_bound_vars().expect(…)`) but even if that was the case, I'd rather gate it behind a new feature flag. Reporting an error instead of ICE'ing is a good first step towards an eventual feature gate error.
2. reject **escaping late-bound generic params**
* They lead to ICEs before & I'm pretty sure that they remain incorrect even in a world with *generic const generics*
---
Together with #118668 & #119385, this supersedes #118360.
Fixes#108271.
```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix#55941.
Do not eat nested expressions' results in `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor
#121563 unintentionally changed the `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor behavior, now missing yield points in nested expressions, as seen in #122674.
The walk can find a yield point in an expression but it was ignored.
r? ``@petrochenkov`` as the reviewer of #121563
cc ``@Jarcho`` as the author
Fixes#122674.
We're in the 1.77 release week. #121563 will land on 1.78 but beta is still 1.77.9: this PR will likely need to be backported soon after beta is cut.
Update the minimum external LLVM to 17
With this change, we'll have stable support for LLVM 17 and 18.
For reference, the previous increase to LLVM 16 was #117947.
add_retag: ensure box-to-raw-ptr casts are preserved for Miri
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122233 I added `retag_box_to_raw` not realizing that we can already do `addr_of_mut!(*bx)` to turn a box into a raw pointer without an intermediate reference. We just need to ensure this information is preserved past the ElaborateBoxDerefs pass.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Remove fixme about LLVM basic block naming
~This may be a small perf win.~
Originally, this PR implemented the fixme, but it didn't have any measurable perf improvement.
r? ``@ghost``
simplify_cfg: rename some passes so that they make more sense
I was extremely confused by `SimplifyCfg::ElaborateDrops`, since it runs way later than drop elaboration. It is used e.g. in `mir-opt/retag.rs` even though that pass doesn't care about drop elaboration at all.
"Early opt" is also very confusing since that makes it sounds like it runs early during optimizations, i.e. on runtime MIR, but actually it runs way before that.
So I decided to rename
- early-opt -> post-analysis
- elaborate-drops -> pre-optimizations
I am open to other suggestions.
Detect when move of !Copy value occurs within loop and should likely not be cloned
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121466.
---
*Point at continue and break that might be in the wrong place*
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92531.
collector: move ensure_sufficient_stack out of the loop
According to the docs this call has some overhead to putting it inside the loop doesn't seem like a good idea.
r? `@oli-obk`
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix#92531.
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix#121466.
