Centralize emitting an error in `const_to_pat` so that all errors from that evaluating a `const` in a pattern can add addditional information. With this, now point at the `const` item's definition:
```
error[E0158]: constant pattern depends on a generic parameter
--> $DIR/associated-const-type-parameter-pattern.rs:20:9
|
LL | pub trait Foo {
| -------------
LL | const X: EFoo;
| ------------- constant defined here
...
LL | A::X => println!("A::X"),
| ^^^^
```
Get rid of HIR const checker
As far as I can tell, the HIR const checker was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66170 because we were not able to issue useful const error messages in the MIR const checker.
This seems to have changed in the last 5 years, probably due to work like #90532. I've tweaked the diagnostics slightly and think the error messages have gotten *better* in fact.
Thus I think the HIR const checker has reached the end of its usefulness, and we can retire it.
cc `@RalfJung`
fix ICE when promoted has layout size overflow
Turns out there is no reason to distinguish `tainted_by_errors` and `can_be_spurious` here, we can just track whether we allow this even in "infallible" constants.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125476
Simplify array length mismatch error reporting (to not try to turn consts into target usizes)
This changes `TypeError::FixedArrayLen` to use `ExpectedFound<ty::Const<'tcx>>` (instead of `ExpectedFound<u64>`), and renames it to `TypeError::ArrayLen`. This allows us to avoid a `try_to_target_usize` call in the type relation, which ICEs when we have a scalar of the wrong bit length (i.e. u8).
This also makes `structurally_relate_tys` to always use this type error kind any time we have a const mismatch resulting from relating the array-len part of `[T; N]`.
This has the effect of changing the error message we issue for array length mismatches involving non-valtree consts. I actually quite like the change, though, since before:
```
LL | fn test<const N: usize, const M: usize>() -> [u8; M] {
| ------- expected `[u8; M]` because of return type
LL | [0; N]
| ^^^^^^ expected `M`, found `N`
|
= note: expected array `[u8; M]`
found array `[u8; N]`
```
and after, which I think is far less verbose:
```
LL | fn test<const N: usize, const M: usize>() -> [u8; M] {
| ------- expected `[u8; M]` because of return type
LL | [0; N]
| ^^^^^^ expected an array with a size of M, found one with a size of N
```
The only questions I have are:
1. Should we do something about backticks here? Right now we don't backtick either fully evaluated consts like `2`, or rigid consts like `Foo::BAR`.... but maybe we should? It seems kinda verbose to do for numbers -- maybe we could intercept those specifically.
2. I guess we may still run the risk of leaking unevaluated consts into error reporting like `2 + 1`...?
r? ``@BoxyUwU``
Fixes#126359Fixes#131101
Point at `const` definition when used instead of a binding in a `let` statement
Modify `PatKind::InlineConstant` to be `ExpandedConstant` standing in not only for inline `const` blocks but also for `const` items. This allows us to track named `const`s used in patterns when the pattern is a single binding. When we detect that there is a refutable pattern involving a `const` that could have been a binding instead, we point at the `const` item, and suggest renaming. We do this for both `let` bindings and `match` expressions missing a catch-all arm if there's at least one single binding pattern referenced.
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^ pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
help: introduce a variable instead
|
LL | let PAT_var = v1;
| ~~~~~~~
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
CC #132582.
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
mark is_val_statically_known intrinsic as stably const-callable
The intrinsic doesn't actually "do" anything in terms of language semantics, and we are already using it in stable const fn. So let's just properly mark it as stably const-callable to avoid needing `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` (and thus reducing noise and keeping the remaining `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` as a more clear signal).
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` usually you have to approve exposing intrinsics in const, but this intrinsic is basically just a compiler implementation detail. So FCP doesn't seem necessary.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
add const_eval_select macro to reduce redundancy
I played around a bit with a macro to make const_eval_select invocations look a bit nicer and avoid repeating the argument lists. Here's what I got. What do you think?
I didn't apply this everywhere yet because I wanted to gather feedback first.
The second commit moves the macros from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132542 into a more sensible place. It didn't seem worth its own PR and would conflict with this PR if done separately.
Cc ``@oli-obk`` ``@saethlin`` ``@tgross35``
try-job: dist-aarch64-msvc
