Changed the error message to more clearly explain what is allowed
This is in regard to #61634. I changed the language to make it more clear what is allowed.
forego caching for all participants in cycles, apart from root node
This is a targeted fix for #60010, which uncovered a pretty bad failure of our caching strategy in the face of coinductive cycles. The problem is explained in the comment in the PR on the new field, `in_cycle`, but I'll reproduce it here:
> Starts out as false -- if, during evaluation, we encounter a
> cycle, then we will set this flag to true for all participants
> in the cycle (apart from the "head" node). These participants
> will then forego caching their results. This is not the most
> efficient solution, but it addresses #60010. The problem we
> are trying to prevent:
>
> - If you have `A: AutoTrait` requires `B: AutoTrait` and `C: NonAutoTrait`
> - `B: AutoTrait` requires `A: AutoTrait` (coinductive cycle, ok)
> - `C: NonAutoTrait` requires `A: AutoTrait` (non-coinductive cycle, not ok)
>
> you don't want to cache that `B: AutoTrait` or `A: AutoTrait`
> is `EvaluatedToOk`; this is because they were only considered
> ok on the premise that if `A: AutoTrait` held, but we indeed
> encountered a problem (later on) with `A: AutoTrait. So we
> currently set a flag on the stack node for `B: AutoTrait` (as
> well as the second instance of `A: AutoTrait`) to supress
> caching.
>
> This is a simple, targeted fix. The correct fix requires
> deeper changes, but would permit more caching: we could
> basically defer caching until we have fully evaluated the
> tree, and then cache the entire tree at once.
I'm not sure what the impact of this fix will be in terms of existing crates or performance: we were accepting incorrect code before, so there will perhaps be some regressions, and we are now caching less.
As the comment above notes, we could do a lot better than this fix, but that would involve more invasive rewrites. I thought it best to start with something simple.
r? @pnkfelix -- but let's do crater/perf run
cc @arielb1
resolve: collect trait aliases along with traits
It seems trait aliases weren't being collected as `TraitCandidates` in resolve, this should change that. (I can't compile the full compiler locally, so relying on CI...)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56485
r? @alexreg
make trait-aliases work across crates
This is rebase of a small part of @alexreg's PR #55994. It focuses just on the changes that integrate trait aliases properly into crate metadata, excluding the stylistic edits and the trait objects.
The stylistic edits I also rebased and can open a separate PR.
The trait object stuff I found challenging and decided it basically needed to be reimplemented. For now I've excluded it.
Since this is really @alexreg's work (I really just rebased) I am going to make it r=me once it is working.
Fixes#56488.
Fixes#57023.
Modify some parser diagnostics to continue evaluating beyond the parser
Continue evaluating further errors after parser errors on:
- trailing type argument attribute
- lifetime in incorrect location
- incorrect binary literal
- missing `for` in `impl Trait for Foo`
- type argument in `where` clause
- incorrect float literal
- incorrect `..` in pattern
- associated types
- incorrect discriminator value variant error
and others. All of these were found by making `continue-parse-after-error` `true` by default to identify errors that would need few changes. There are now only a handful of errors that have any change with `continue-parse-after-error` enabled.
These changes make it so `rust` _won't_ stop evaluation after finishing parsing, enabling type checking errors to be displayed on the existing code without having to fix the parse errors.
Each commit has an individual diagnostic change with their corresponding tests.
CC #48724.
Take supertraits into account when calculating associated types
Fixes#24010 and #23856. Applies to trait aliases too.
As a by-product, this PR also makes repeated bindings of the same associated item in the same definition a hard error. This was previously a warning with a note about it becoming a hard error in the future. See #50589 for more info.
I talked about this with @nikomatsakis recently, but only very superficially, so this shouldn't stop anyone from assigning it to themself to review and r+.
N.B. The "WIP" commits represent imperfect attempts to solve the problem just for trait objects, but I've left them in for reference for the sake of whomever is reviewing this.
CC @carllerche @theemathas @durka @mbrubeck
