Coherence should allow fundamental types to impl traits when they are local
After #64414, `impl<T> Remote for Box<T> { }` is disallowed, but it is also disallowed in liballoc, where `Box` is a local type!
Enabling `#![feature(re_rebalance_coherence)]` in `liballoc` results in:
```
error[E0210]: type parameter `F` must be used as the type parameter for some local type (e.g., `MyStruct<F>`)
--> src\liballoc\boxed.rs:1098:1
|
1098 | impl<F: ?Sized + Future + Unpin> Future for Box<F> {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ type parameter `F` must be used as the type parameter for some local type
```
This PR relaxes `uncover_fundamental_ty` to skip local fundamental types.
I didn't add a test since `liballoc` already fails to compile, but I can add one if needed.
r? @nikomatsakis
cc #63599
Add more coherence tests
I've wrote the missing test cases listed in [this google doc](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WlroTEXE6qxxGvEOhICkUpqguYZP9YOZEvnmEtSNtM0/edit#gid=0)
> The other thing that might be useful is to rename the existing tests so they all fit the new naming scheme we were using.
I'm not entirely sure how to do this. If everything from the google sheet is covered could I just remove the remaining tests in `src/test/ui/coherence` or is there something in there that should remain?
cc #63599
r? @nikomatsakis
compiletest: Introduce `// {check,build,run}-pass` pass modes
Pass UI tests now have three modes
```
// check-pass
// build-pass
// run-pass
```
mirroring equivalent well-known `cargo` commands.
`// check-pass` will compile the test skipping codegen (which is expensive and isn't supposed to fail in most cases).
`// build-pass` will compile and link the test without running it.
`// run-pass` will compile, link and run the test.
Tests without a "pass" annotation are still considered "fail" tests.
Most UI tests would probably want to switch to `check-pass`.
Tests validating codegen would probably want to run the generated code as well and use `run-pass`.
`build-pass` should probably be rare (linking tests?).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61755 will provide a way to run the tests with any mode, e.g. bump `check-pass` tests to `run-pass` to satisfy especially suspicious people, and be able to make sure that codegen doesn't breaks in some entirely unexpected way.
Tests marked with any mode are expected to pass with any other mode, if that's not the case for some legitimate reason, then the test should be made a "fail" test rather than a "pass" test.
Perhaps some secondary CI can verify this invariant, but that's not super urgent.
`// compile-pass` still works and is equivalent to `build-pass`.
Why is `// compile-pass` bad - 1) it gives an impression that the test is only compiled, but not linked, 2) it doesn't mirror a cargo command.
It can be removed some time in the future in a separate PR.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61712
This shouldn't break compatibility for crates that do not use
`feature(optin_builtin_traits)`, because as the test shows, it is
only possible to impl a marker trait for a trait object in the crate the
marker trait is defined in, which must define
`feature(optin_builtin_traits)`.
Fixes#56934
