querify layout and move param env out of the infcx
The main goal of this PR is to move the parameter environment *out* of the inference context. This is because the inference environment will soon be changing over the course of inference --- for example, when we enter into a `for<'a> fn(...)` type, we will push a new environment with an increasing universe index, rather than skolemizing the `'a` references. Similarly, each obligation will soon be able to have a distinct parameter environment, and therefore the `Obligation` struct is extended to carry a `ParamEnv<'tcx>`. (I debated about putting it into the cause; seems plausible, but also weird.)
Along the way, I also reworked how layout works, moving the layout cache into a proper query along the lines of needs-drop and friends.
Finally, tweaks the inference context API. It seemed to be accumulating parameters at an alarming rate. The main way to e.g. make a subtype or equality relationship is to do the following:
infcx.at(cause, param_env).sub(a, b)
infcx.at(cause, param_env).eq(a, b)
In both cases, `a` is considered the "expected" type (this used to be specified by a boolean). I tried hard to preserve the existing notion of what was "expected", although in some cases I'm not convinced it was being set on purpose one way or the other. This is why in some cases you will see me do `sup(b, a)`, which is otherwise equivalent to `sub(a, b)`, but sets the "expected type" differently.
r? @eddyb
cc @arielb1
The 'run-pass' header cause a 'ui' test to execute the result. It is used
to test the lint output, at the same time ensure those lints won't cause
the source code to become compile-fail.
12 run-pass/run-pass-fulldeps tests gained the header and are moved to
ui/ui-fulldeps. After this move, no run-pass/run-pass-fulldeps tests should
rely on the compiler's JSON message. This allows us to stop passing
`--error-format json` in run-pass tests, thus fixing #36516.
Decompose Adjustment into smaller steps and remove the method map.
The method map held method callee information for:
* actual method calls (`x.f(...)`)
* overloaded unary, binary, indexing and call operators
* *every overloaded deref adjustment* (many can exist for each expression)
That last one was a historical ~~accident~~ hack, and part of the motivation for this PR, along with:
* a desire to compose adjustments more freely
* containing the autoderef logic better to avoid mutation within an inference snapshot
* not creating `TyFnDef` types which are incompatible with the original one
* i.e. we used to take a`TyFnDef`'s `for<'a> &'a T -> &'a U` signature and instantiate `'a` using a region inference variable, *then* package the resulting `&'b T -> &'b U` signature in another `TyFnDef`, while keeping *the same* `DefId` and `Substs`
* to fix#3548 by explicitly writing autorefs for the RHS of comparison operators
Individual commits tell their own story, of "atomic" changes avoiding breaking semantics.
Future work based on this PR could include:
* removing the signature from `TyFnDef`, now that it's always "canonical"
* some questions of variance remain, as subtyping *still* treats the signature differently
* moving part of the typeck logic for methods, autoderef and coercion into `rustc::traits`
* allowing LUB coercions (joining multiple expressions) to "stack up" many adjustments
* transitive coercions (e.g. reify or unsize after multiple steps of autoderef)
r? @nikomatsakis
rustdoc: Cleanup associated const value rendering
Rather than (ab)using Debug for outputting the type in plain text use the
alternate format parameter which already does exactly that. This fixes
type parameters for example which would output raw HTML.
Also cleans up adding parens around references to trait objects.
Rather than (ab)using Debug for outputting the type in plain text use the
alternate format parameter which already does exactly that. This fixes
type parameters for example which would output raw HTML.
Also cleans up adding parens around references to trait objects.
Explain why a closure is `FnOnce` in closure errors.
Issue: #42065
@nikomatsakis Am I going the right direction with this?
~~I am stuck in a few bits:~~
~~1. How to trace the code to get the upvar instead of the original variable's span?~~
~~2. How to find the node id of the upvar where the move occured?~~
incr.comp.: Track expanded spans instead of FileMaps.
This PR removes explicit tracking of FileMaps in response to #42101. The reasoning behind being able to just *not* track access to FileMaps is similar to why we don't track access to the `DefId->DefPath` map:
1. One can only get ahold of a `Span` value by accessing the HIR (for local things) or a `metadata::schema::Entry` (for things from external crates).
2. For both of these things we compute a hash that incorporates the *expanded spans*, that is, what we hash is in the (FileMap independent) format `filename:line:col`.
3. Consequently, everything that emits a span should already be tracked via its dependency to something that has the span included in its hash and changes would be detected via that hash.
One caveat here is that we have to be conservative when exporting things in metadata. A crate can be built without debuginfo and would thus by default not incorporate most spans into the metadata hashes. However, a downstream crate can make an inline copy of things in the upstream crate and span changes in the upstream crate would then go undetected, even if the downstream uses them (e.g. by emitting debuginfo for an inlined function). For this reason, we always incorporate spans into metadata hashes for now (there might be more efficient ways to handle this safely when red-green tracking is implemented).
r? @nikomatsakis
Translate array drop glue using MIR
I was a bit lazy here and used a usize-based index instead of a pointer iteration. Do you think this is important @eddyb?
r? @eddyb
This fixes leakage on panic with arrays & slices. I am using a C-style
for-loop instead of a pointer-based loop because that would be ugly-er
to implement.
extend `struct_tail` to operate over tuples
Not 100% sure why this got exposed when it wasn't before, but this struct definitely seems wrong.
Fixes#42110
r? @eddyb
