Reject relaxed bounds inside associated type bounds (ATB)
**Reject** relaxed bounds — most notably `?Sized` — inside associated type bounds `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>`.
This was previously accepted without warning despite being incorrect: ATBs are *not* a place where we perform *sized elaboration*, meaning `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>` does *not* elaborate to `TraitRef<AssocTy: Sized + …>` if `…` doesn't contain `?Sized`. Therefore `?Sized` is meaningless. In no other (stable) place do we (intentionally) allow relaxed bounds where we don't also perform sized elab, this is highly inconsistent and confusing! Another point of comparison: For the desugared `$SelfTy: TraitRef, $SelfTy::AssocTy: …` we don't do sized elab either (and thus also don't allow relaxed bounds).
Moreover — as I've alluded to back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135841#pullrequestreview-2619462717 — some later validation steps only happen during sized elaboration during HIR ty lowering[^1]. Namely, rejecting duplicates (e.g., `?Trait + ?Trait`) and ensuring that `Trait` in `?Trait` is equal to `Sized`[^2]. As you can probably guess, on stable/master we don't run these checks for ATBs (so we allow even more nonsensical bounds like `Iterator<Item: ?Copy>` despite T-types's ruling established in the FCP'ed rust-lang/rust#135841).
This PR rectifies all of this. I cratered this back in 2025-01-10 with (allegedly) no regressions found ([report](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585330783), [its analysis](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585356422)). [However a contributor manually found two occurrences](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135229#issuecomment-2581832852) of `TraitRef<AssocTy: ?Sized>` in small hobby projects (presumably via GH code search). I immediately sent downstream PRs: https://github.com/Gui-Yom/turbo-metrics/pull/14, https://github.com/ireina7/summon/pull/1 (however, the owners have showed no reaction so far).
I'm leaning towards banning these forms **without a FCW** because a FCW isn't worth the maintenance cost[^3]. Note that associated type bounds were stabilized in 1.79.0 (released 2024-06-13 which is 13 months ago), so the proliferation of ATBs shouldn't be that high yet. If you think we should do another crater run since the last one was 6 months ago, I'm fine with that.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#135229.
[^1]: I consider this a flaw in the implementation and [I've already added a huge FIXME](82a02aefe0/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/bounds.rs (L195-L207)).
[^2]: To be more precise, if the internal flag `-Zexperimental-default-bounds` is provided other "default traits" (needs internal feature `lang_items`) are permitted as well (cc closely related internal feature: `more_maybe_bounds`).
[^3]: Having to track this and adding an entire lint whose remnants would remain in the code base forever (we never *fully* remove lints).
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
atomicrmw on pointers: move integer-pointer cast hacks into backend
Conceptually, we want to have atomic operations on pointers of the form `fn atomic_add(ptr: *mut T, offset: usize, ...)`. However, LLVM does not directly support such operations (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/120837), so we have to cast the `offset` to a pointer somewhere.
This PR moves that hack into the LLVM backend, so that the standard library, intrinsic, and Miri all work with the conceptual operation we actually want. Hopefully, one day LLVM will gain a way to represent these operations without integer-pointer casts, and then the hack will disappear entirely.
Cc ```@nikic``` -- this is the best we can do right now, right?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134617
`TyCtxt::short_string` ensures that user visible type paths aren't overwhelming on the terminal output, and properly saves the long name to disk as a side-channel. We already use these throughout the compiler and have been using them as needed when users find cases where the output is verbose. This is a proactive search of some cases to use `short_string`.
We add support for shortening the path of "trait path only".
Every manual use of `short_string` is a bright marker that that error should be using structured diagnostics instead (as they have proper handling of long types without the maintainer having to think abou tthem).
When we don't actually print out a shortened type we don't need the "use `--verbose`" note.
On E0599 show type identity to avoid expanding the receiver's generic parameters.
Unify wording on `long_ty_path` everywhere.
Distinguish prepending and replacing self ty in predicates
There are two kinds of functions called `with_self_ty`:
1. Prepends the `Self` type onto an `ExistentialPredicate` which lacks it in its internal representation.
2. Replaces the `Self` type of an existing predicate, either for diagnostics purposes or in the new trait solver when normalizing that self type.
This PR distinguishes these two because I often want to only grep for one of them. Namely, let's call it `with_replaced_self_ty` when all we're doing is replacing the self type.
expand WF obligations when checking method calls
Don't wrap a bunch of signatures in `FnPtr` then check their WF; instead, check the WFness of each input/output separately.
This is useful for the new trait solver, since because we stall on root obligations we end up needing to repeatedly recompute the WFness of possibly very large function signature types if it ends up bottoming out in ambiguity.
This may also give us more chances to hit the WF fast path for certain types like built-ins.
Finally, this just seems conceptually correct to do. There's nothing conceptually that suggests that wrapping the function signature in an fn pointer makes sense at all to do; I'm guessing that it was just convenient so that we didn't have to register WF obligations in a loop, but it doesn't affect the readability of this code at all.
Improve formatting of doc code blocks
We don't currently apply automatic formatting to doc comment code blocks. As a
result, it has built up various idiosyncracies, which make such automatic
formatting difficult. Some of those idiosyncracies also make things harder for
human readers or other tools.
This PR makes a few improvements to doc code formatting, in the hopes of making
future automatic formatting easier, as well as in many cases providing net
readability improvements.
I would suggest reading each commit separately, as each commit contains one
class of changes.
Remove the witness type from coroutine *args* (without actually removing the type)
This does as much of rust-lang/rust#144157 as we can without having to break rust-lang/rust#143545 and/or introduce some better way of handling higher ranked assumptions.
Namely, it:
* Stalls coroutines based off of the *coroutine* type rather than the witness type.
* Reworks the dtorck constraint hack to not rely on the witness type.
* Removes the witness type from the args of the coroutine, eagerly creating the type for nested obligations when needed (auto/clone impls).
I'll experiment with actually removing the witness type in a follow-up.
r? lcnr
There are identical definitions in `rustc_type_ir` and `rustc_ast`. This
commit removes them and places a single definition in `rustc_ast_ir`.
This requires adding `rust_span` as a dependency of `rustc_ast_ir`, but
means a bunch of silly conversion functions can be removed.
The one annoying wrinkle is that the old version had differences in
their `Debug` impls, e.g. one printed `u32` while the other printed
`U32`. Some compiler error messages rely on the former (yuk), and some
clippy output depends on the latter. So the commit also changes clippy
to not rely on `Debug` and just implement what it needs itself.
Currently there is `Ty` and `BoundTy`, and `Region` and `BoundRegion`,
and `Const` and... `BoundVar`. An annoying inconsistency.
This commit repurposes the existing `BoundConst`, which was barely used,
so it's the partner to `Const`. Unlike `BoundTy`/`BoundRegion` it lacks
a `kind` field but it's still nice to have because it makes the const
code more similar to the ty/region code everywhere.
The commit also removes `impl From<BoundVar> for BoundTy`, which has a
single use and doesn't seem worth it.
These changes fix the "FIXME: We really should have a separate
`BoundConst` for consts".
Because doc code does not get automatically formatted, some doc code has
creative placements of comments that automatic formatting can't handle.
Reformat those comments to make the resulting code support standard Rust
formatting without breaking; this is generally an improvement to
readability as well.
Some comments are not indented to the prevailing indent, and are instead
aligned under some bit of code. Indent them to the prevailing indent,
and put spaces *inside* the comments to align them with code.
Some comments span several lines of code (which aren't the line the
comment is about) and expect alignment. Reformat them into one comment
not broken up by unrelated intervening code.
Some comments are placed on the same line as an opening brace, placing
them effectively inside the subsequent block, such that formatting would
typically format them like a line of that block. Move those comments to
attach them to what they apply to.
Some comments are placed on the same line as a one-line braced block,
effectively attaching them to the closing brace, even though they're
about the code inside the block. Reformat to make sure the comment will
stay on the same line as the code it's commenting.
Remove dead code and extend test coverage and diagnostics around it
I was staring a bit at the `dont_niche_optimize_enum` variable and figured out that part of it is dead code (at least today it is). I changed the diagnostic and test around the code that makes that part dead code, so everything that makes removing that code sound is visible in this PR
We lost the following comment during refactorings:
The current code for niche-filling relies on variant indices instead of actual discriminants, so enums with explicit discriminants (RFC 2363) would misbehave.
