Only compute vtable information during codegen
This PR removes vtable information from the `Object` and `TraitUpcasting` candidate sources in the trait solvers, and defers the computation of relevant information to `Instance::resolve`. This is because vtables really aren't a thing in the trait world -- they're an implementation detail in codegen.
Previously it was just easiest to tangle this information together since we were already doing the work of looking at all the supertraits in the trait solver, and specifically because we use traits to represent when it's possible to call a method via a vtable (`Object` candidate) and do upcasting (`Unsize` candidate). but I am somewhat suspicious we're doing a *lot* of extra work, especially in polymorphic contexts, so let's see what perf says.
Make proof tree probing and `Candidate`/`CandidateSource` generic over interner
`<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` is ugly, but will become `<I>` when things actually become generic.
r? lcnr
Check that alias-relate terms are WF if reporting an error in alias-relate
Check that each of the left/right term is WF when deriving a best error obligation for an alias-relate goal. This will make sure that given `<i32 as NotImplemented>::Assoc = ()` will drill down into `i32: NotImplemented` since we currently treat the projection as rigid.
r? lcnr
Use `Variance` glob imported variants everywhere
Fully commit to using the globbed variance. Could be convinced the other way, and change this PR to not use the globbed variants anywhere, but I'd rather we do one or the other.
r? lcnr
Align `Term` methods with `GenericArg` methods, add `Term::expect_*`
* `Term::ty` -> `Term::as_type`.
* `Term::ct` -> `Term::as_const`.
* Adds `Term::expect_type` and `Term::expect_const`, and uses them in favor of `.ty().unwrap()`, etc.
I could also shorten these to `as_ty` and then do `GenericArg::as_ty` as well, but I do think the `as_` is important to signal that this is a conversion method, and not a getter, like `Const::ty` is.
r? types
Make `WHERE_CLAUSES_OBJECT_SAFETY` a regular object safety violation
#### The issue
In #50781, we have known about unsound `where` clauses in function arguments:
```rust
trait Impossible {}
trait Foo {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible;
}
impl Foo for &() {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible,
{}
}
// `where` clause satisfied for the object, meaning that the function now *looks* callable.
impl Impossible for dyn Foo {}
fn main() {
let x: &dyn Foo = &&();
x.impossible();
}
```
... which currently segfaults at runtime because we try to call a method in the vtable that doesn't exist. :(
#### What did u change
This PR removes the `WHERE_CLAUSES_OBJECT_SAFETY` lint and instead makes it a regular object safety violation. I choose to make this into a hard error immediately rather than a `deny` because of the time that has passed since this lint was authored, and the single (1) regression (see below).
That means that it's OK to mention `where Self: Trait` where clauses in your trait, but making such a trait into a `dyn Trait` object will report an object safety violation just like `where Self: Sized`, etc.
```rust
trait Impossible {}
trait Foo {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible; // <~ This definition is valid, just not object-safe.
}
impl Foo for &() {
fn impossible(&self)
where
Self: Impossible,
{}
}
fn main() {
let x: &dyn Foo = &&(); // <~ THIS is where we emit an error.
}
```
#### Regressions
From a recent crater run, there's only one crate that relies on this behavior: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124305#issuecomment-2122381740. The crate looks unmaintained and there seems to be no dependents.
#### Further
We may later choose to relax this (e.g. when the where clause is implied by the supertraits of the trait or something), but this is not something I propose to do in this FCP.
For example, given:
```
trait Tr {
fn f(&self) where Self: Blanket;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> Blanket for T {}
```
Proving that some placeholder `S` implements `S: Blanket` would be sufficient to prove that the same (blanket) impl applies for both `Concerete: Blanket` and `dyn Trait: Blanket`.
Repeating here that I don't think we need to implement this behavior right now.
----
r? lcnr
Uplift `{Closure,Coroutine,CoroutineClosure}Args` and friends to `rustc_type_ir`
Part of converting the new solver's `structural_traits.rs` to be interner-agnostic.
I decided against aliasing `ClosureArgs<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` to `ClosureArgs<'tcx>` because it seemed so rare. I could do so if desired, though.
r? lcnr
Implement `needs_async_drop` in rustc and optimize async drop glue
This PR expands on #121801 and implements `Ty::needs_async_drop` which works almost exactly the same as `Ty::needs_drop`, which is needed for #123948.
Also made compiler's async drop code to look more like compiler's regular drop code, which enabled me to write an optimization where types which do not use `AsyncDrop` can simply forward async drop glue to `drop_in_place`. This made size of the async block from the [async_drop test](67980dd6fb/tests/ui/async-await/async-drop.rs) to decrease by 12%.
Do not equate `Const`'s ty in `super_combine_const`
Fixes#114456
In #125451 we started relating the `Const`'s tys outside of a probe so it was no longer simply an assertion to catch bugs.
This was done so that when we _do_ provide a wrongly typed const argument to an item if we wind up relating it with some other instantiation we'll have a `TypeError` we can bubble up and taint the resulting mir allowing const eval to skip evaluation.
In this PR I instead change `ConstArgHasType` to correctly handle checking the types of const inference variables. Previously if we had something like `impl<const N: u32> Trait for [(); N]`, when using the impl we would instantiate it with infer vars and then check that `?x: u32` is of type `u32` and succeed. Then later we would infer `?x` to some `Const` of type `usize`.
We now stall on `?x` in `ConstArgHasType` until it has a concrete value that we can determine the type of. This allows us to fail using the erroneous implementation of `Trait` which allows us to taint the mir.
Long term we intend to remove the `ty` field on `Const` so we would have no way of accessing the `ty` of a const inference variable anyway and would have to do this. I did not fully update `ConstArgHasType` to avoid using the `ty` field as it's not entirely possible right now- we would need to lookup `ConstArgHasType` candidates in the env.
---
As for _why_ I think we should do this, relating the types of const's is not necessary for soundness of the type system. Originally this check started off as a plain `==` in `super_relate_consts` and gradually has been growing in complexity as we support more complicated types. It was never actually required to ensure that const arguments are correctly typed for their parameters however.
The way we currently check that a const argument has the correct type is a little convoluted and confusing (and will hopefully be less weird as time goes on). Every const argument has an anon const with its return type set to type of the const parameter it is an argument to. When type checking the anon const regular type checking rules require that the expression is the same type as the return type. This effectively ensure that no matter what every const argument _always_ has the correct type.
An extra bit of complexity is that during `hir_ty_lowering` we do not represent everything as a `ConstKind::Unevaluated` corresponding to the anon const. For generic parameters i.e. `[(); N]` we simply represent them as `ConstKind::Param` as we do not want `ConstKind::Unevaluated` with generic substs on stable under min const generics. The anon const still gets type checked resulting in errors about type mismatches.
Eventually we intend to not create anon consts for all const arguments (for example for `ConstKind::Param`) and instead check that the argument type is correct via `ConstArgHasType` obligations (these effectively also act as a check that the anon consts have the correctly set return type).
What this all means is that the the only time we should ever have mismatched types when relating two `Const`s is if we have messed up our logic for ensuring that const arguments are of the correct type. Having this not be an assert is:
- Confusing as it may incorrectly lead people to believe this is an important check that is actually required
- Opens the possibility for bugs or behaviour reliant on this (unnecessary) check existing
---
This PR makes two tests go from pass->ICE (`generic_const_exprs/ice-125520-layout-mismatch-mulwithoverflow.rs` and `tests/crashes/121858.rs`). This is caused by the fact that we evaluate anon consts even if their where clauses do not hold and is a pre-existing issue and only affects `generic_const_exprs`. I am comfortable exposing the brokenness of `generic_const_exprs` more with this PR
This PR makes a test go from ICE->pass (`const-generics/issues/issue-105821.rs`). I have no idea why this PR affects that but I believe that ICE is an unrelated issue to do with the fact that under `generic_const_exprs`/`adt_const_params` we do not handle lifetimes in const parameter types correctly. This PR is likely just masking this bug.
Note: this PR doesn't re-introduce the assertion that the two consts' tys are equal. I'm not really sure how I feel about this but tbh it has caused more ICEs than its found lately so 🤷♀️
r? `@oli-obk` `@compiler-errors`
