If a symbol name can only be imported from one place for a type, and
as long as it was not glob-imported anywhere in the current crate, we
can trim its printed path and print only the name.
This has wide implications on error messages with types, for example,
shortening `std::vec::Vec` to just `Vec`, as long as there is no other
`Vec` importable anywhere.
This adds a new '-Z trim-diagnostic-paths=false' option to control this
feature.
On the good path, with no diagnosis printed, we should try to avoid
issuing this query, so we need to prevent trimmed_def_paths query on
several cases.
This change also relies on a previous commit that differentiates
between `Debug` and `Display` on various rustc types, where the latter
is trimmed and presented to the user and the former is not.
In particular, it no longer occurs during the subtyping check. This is
important for enabling lazy normalization, because the subtyping check
will be producing sub-obligations that could affect its results.
Consider an example like
for<'a> fn(<&'a as Mirror>::Item) =
fn(&'b u8)
where `<T as Mirror>::Item = T` for all `T`. We will wish to produce a
new subobligation like
<'!1 as Mirror>::Item = &'b u8
This will, after being solved, ultimately yield a constraint that `'!1
= 'b` which will fail. But with the leak-check being performed on
subtyping, there is no opportunity to normalize `<'!1 as
Mirror>::Item` (unless we invoke that normalization directly from
within subtyping, and I would prefer that subtyping and unification
are distinct operations rather than part of the trait solving stack).
The reason to keep the leak check during coherence and trait
evaluation is partly for backwards compatibility. The coherence change
permits impls for `fn(T)` and `fn(&T)` to co-exist, and the trait
evaluation change means that we can distinguish those two cases
without ambiguity errors. It also avoids recreating #57639, where we
were incorrectly choosing a where clause that would have failed the
leak check over the impl which succeeds.
The other reason to keep the leak check in those places is that I
think it is actually close to the model we want. To the point, I think
the trait solver ought to have the job of "breaking down"
higher-ranked region obligation like ``!1: '2` into into region
obligations that operate on things in the root universe, at which
point they should be handed off to polonius. The leak check isn't
*really* doing that -- these obligations are still handed to the
region solver to process -- but if/when we do adopt that model, the
decision to pass/fail would be happening in roughly this part of the
code.
This change had somewhat more side-effects than I anticipated. It
seems like there are cases where the leak-check was not being enforced
during method proving and trait selection. I haven't quite tracked
this down but I think it ought to be documented, so that we know what
precisely we are committing to.
One surprising test was `issue-30786.rs`. The behavior there seems a
bit "fishy" to me, but the problem is not related to the leak check
change as far as I can tell, but more to do with the closure signature
inference code and perhaps the associated type projection, which
together seem to be conspiring to produce an unexpected
signature. Nonetheless, it is an example of where changing the
leak-check can have some unexpected consequences: we're now failing to
resolve a method earlier than we were, which suggests we might change
some method resolutions that would have been ambiguous to be
successful.
TODO:
* figure out remainig test failures
* add new coherence tests for the patterns we ARE disallowing
- Suggest borrowing expression if it would allow cast to work.
- Suggest using `<Type>::from(<expr>)` when appropriate.
- Minor tweak to `;` typo suggestion.
Partily address #47136.
Support coercion between (FnDef | Closure) and (FnDef | Closure)
Fixes#46742, fixes#48109
Inject `Closure` into the `FnDef x FnDef` coercion special case, which makes coercion of `(FnDef | Closure) x (FnDef | Closure)` possible, where closures should be **non-capturing**.
Polonius: update to 0.12.1, fix more move errors false positives, update test expectations
This PR:
- updates `polonius-engine` to version 0.12.1 to fix some move errors false positives
- fixes a fact generation mistake creating the other move errors false positives
- updates the test expectations for the polonius compare-mode so that all (minus the 2 OOMs) ui tests pass again (matching the [analysis doc](https://hackmd.io/CjYB0fs4Q9CweyeTdKWyEg?view) starting at case 34)
In my opinion, this is safe to rollup.
r? @nikomatsakis
Tweak obligation error output
- Point at arguments or output when fn obligations come from them, or ident when they don't
- Point at `Sized` bound (fix#47990)
- When object unsafe trait uses itself in associated item suggest using `Self` (fix#66424, fix#33375, partially address #38376, cc #61525)
- Point at reason in object unsafe trait with `Self` in supertraits or `where`-clause (cc #40533, cc #68377)
- On implicit type parameter `Sized` obligations, suggest `?Sized` (fix#57744, fix#46683)
In which we implement illegal subset relations errors using Polonius
This PR is the rustc side of implementing subset errors using Polonius. That is, in
```rust
fn foo<'a, 'b>(x: &'a u32, y: &'b u32) -> &'a u32 {
y
}
```
returning `y` requires that `'b: 'a` but we have no evidence of that, so this is an error. (Evidence that the relation holds could come from explicit bounds, or via implied bounds).
Polonius outputs one such error per CFG point where the free region's placeholder loan unexpectedly flowed into another free region. While all these CFG locations could be useful in diagnostics in the future, rustc does not do that (and the duplication is only partially handled in the rest of the errors/diagnostics infrastructure, e.g. duplicate suggestions will be shown by the "outlives suggestions" or some of the `#[rustc_*]` NLL/MIR debug dumps), so I deduplicated the errors.
(The ordering also matters, otherwise some of the elided lifetime naming would change behaviour).
I've blessed a couple of tests, where the output is currently suboptimal:
- the `hrtb-perfect-forwarding` tests mix subset errors with higher-ranked subtyping, however the plan is for chalk to eventually take care of some of this to generate polonius constraints (i.e. it's not polonius' job). Until that happens, polonius will not see the error that NLL sees.
- some other tests have errors and diagnostics specific to `'static`, I _believe_ this to be because of it being treated as more "special" than in polonius. I believe the output is not wrong, but could be better, and appears elsewhere (I feel we'll need to look at polonius' handling of `'static` at some point in the future, maybe to match a bit more what NLL does when it produces errors)
I'll create a tracking issue in the polonius repo to record these 2 points (and a general "we'll need to go over the blessed output" issue, much like we did for NLLs)
The last blessed test is because it's an improvement: in this case, more errors/suggestions were computed, instead of the existing code path where this case apparently stops at the first error.
The `Naive` variant in Polonius computes those errors, so this PR also switches the default variant to that, as we're also in the process of temporarily deactivating all other variants (which exist mostly for performance considerations) until we have completed more work on completeness and correctness, before focusing on efficiency once again.
While most of the correctness in this PR is hidden in the polonius compare-mode (which of course passes locally), I've added a couple of smoke-tests to the existing ones, so that we have some confidence that it works (and keeps working) until we're in a position where we can run them on CI.
As mentioned during yesterday's wg-polonius meeting, @nikomatsakis has already read through most of this PR (and which is matching what they thought needed to be done [during the recent Polonius sprint](https://hackmd.io/CGMNjt1hR_qYtsR9hgdGmw#Compiler-notes-on-generating-the-placeholder-loans-support)), but Matthew was hopefully going to review (again, not urgent), so:
r? @matthewjasper
(This updates to the latest `polonius-engine` release, and I'm not sure whether `Cargo.lock` updates can easily be rolled up, but apart from that: this changes little that's tested on CI, so seems safe-ish to rollup ?)
Add outlives suggestions for some lifetime errors
This PR implements suggestion diagnostics for some lifetime mismatch errors. When the borrow checker finds that some lifetime 'a doesn't outlive some other lifetime 'b that it should outlive, then in addition to the current lifetime error, we also emit a suggestion for how to fix the problem by adding a bound:
- If a and b are normal named regions, suggest to add the bound `'a: 'b`
- If b is static, suggest to replace a with static
- If b also needs to outlive a, they must be the same, so suggest unifying them
We start with a simpler implementation that avoids diagnostic regression or implementation complexity:
- We only makes suggestions for lifetimes the user can already name (eg not closure regions or elided regions)
- For now, we only emit a help note, not an actually suggestion because it is significantly easier.
Finally, there is one hack: it seems that implicit regions in async fn are given the name '_ incorrectly. To avoid suggesting '_: 'x, we simply filter out such lifetimes by name.
For more info, see this internals thread:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/mechanical-suggestions-for-some-borrow-checker-errors/9049/3
TL;DR Make suggestions to add a `where 'a: 'b` constraint for some lifetime errors. Details are in the paper linked from the internals thread above.
r? @estebank
TODO
- [x] Clean up code
- [x] Only make idiomatic suggestions
- [x] don't suggest naming `&'a self`
- [x] rather than `'a: 'static`, suggest replacing `'a` with `'static`
- [x] rather than `'a: 'b, 'b: 'a`, suggest replacing `'a` with `'b` or vice versa
- [x] Performance (maybe need a perf run when this is closer to the finish line?)
- perf run was clean...
- EDIT: perf run seems to only check non-error performance... How do we check that error performance didn't regress?
- [x] Needs ui tests
- [x] Integrate the `help` message into the main lifetime `error`
