Move `DepKind` to `rustc_query_system` and define it as `u16`
This moves the `DepKind` type to `rustc_query_system` where it's defined with an inner `u16` field. This decouples it from `rustc_middle` and is a step towards letting other crates define dep kinds. It also allows some type parameters to be removed. The `DepKind` trait is replaced with a `Deps` trait. That's used when some operations or information about dep kinds which is unavailable in `rustc_query_system` are still needed.
r? `@cjgillot`
Avoid a `source_span` query when encoding Spans into query results
This avoids a `source_span` query when encoding `Span`s into query results. It's not sound to execute queries here as the query caches can be locked and the dep graph is no longer writable.
r? `@cjgillot`
Store the laziness of type aliases in their `DefKind`
Previously, we would treat paths referring to type aliases as *lazy* type aliases if the current crate had lazy type aliases enabled independently of whether the crate which the alias was defined in had the feature enabled or not.
With this PR, the laziness of a type alias depends on the crate it is defined in. This generally makes more sense to me especially if / once lazy type aliases become the default in a new edition and we need to think about *edition interoperability*:
Consider the hypothetical case where the dependency crate has an older edition (and thus eager type aliases), it exports a type alias with bounds & a where-clause (which are void but technically valid), the dependent crate has the latest edition (and thus lazy type aliases) and it uses that type alias. Arguably, the bounds should *not* be checked since at any time, the dependency crate should be allowed to change the bounds at will with a *non*-major version bump & without negatively affecting downstream crates.
As for the reverse case (dependency: lazy type aliases, dependent: eager type aliases), I guess it rules out anything from slight confusion to mild annoyance from upstream crate authors that would be caused by the compiler ignoring the bounds of their type aliases in downstream crates with older editions.
---
This fixes#114468 since before, my assumption that the type alias associated with a given weak projection was lazy (and therefore had its variances computed) did not necessarily hold in cross-crate scenarios (which [I kinda had a hunch about](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114253#discussion_r1278608099)) as outlined above. Now it does hold.
`@rustbot` label F-lazy_type_alias
r? `@oli-obk`
rustdoc: handle cross-crate RPITITs correctly
Filter out the internal associated types synthesized during the desugaring of RPITITs, they really shouldn't show up in the docs.
This also fixes#113929 since we're no longer invoking `is_impossible_associated_item` (renamed from `is_impossible_method`) which cannot handle them (leading to an ICE). I don't think it makes sense to try to make `is_impossible_associated_item` handle this exotic kind of associated type (CC original author `@compiler-errors).`
@ T-rustdoc reviewers, currently I'm throwing out ITIT assoc tys before cleaning assoc tys at each usage-site. I'm thinking about making `clean_middle_assoc_item` return an `Option<_>` instead and doing the check inside of it to prevent any call sites from forgetting the check for ITITs. Since I wasn't sure if you would like that approach, I didn't go through with it. Let me know what you think.
<details><summary>Explanation on why <code>is_impossible_associated_item(itit_assoc_ty)</code> leads to an ICE</summary>
Given the following code:
```rs
pub trait Trait { fn def<T>() -> impl Default {} }
impl Trait for () {}
```
The generated associated type looks something like (simplified):
```rs
type {opaque#0}<T>: Default = impl Default; // the name is actually `kw::Empty` but this is the `def_path_str` repr
```
The query `is_impossible_associated_item` goes through all predicates of the associated item – in this case `<T as Sized>` – to check if they contain any generic parameters from the (generic) associated type itself. For predicates that don't contain any *own* generics, it does further processing, part of which is instantiating the predicate with the generic arguments of the impl block (which is only correct if they truly don't contain any own generics since they wouldn't get instantiated this way leading to an ICE).
It checks if `parent_def_id(T) == assoc_ty_def_id` to get to know if `T` is owned by the assoc ty. Unfortunately this doesn't work for ITIT assoc tys. In this case, the parent of `T` is `Trait::def` (!) which is the associated function (I'm pretty sure this is very intentional) which is of course not equal to the assoc ty `Trait::{opaque#0}`.
</details>
`@rustbot` label A-cross-crate-reexports
Querify unused trait check.
This code transitively loads information for all bodies, and from resolutions. As it does not return a value, it should be beneficial to have it as a query.
Use u64 for incr comp allocation offsets
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76037
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95780
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111613
These issues are all reporting ICEs caused by using `u32` to store offsets to allocations in the incremental compilation cache. This PR aims to lift that limitation by changing the offset type in question to `u64`.
There are two perf runs in this PR. The first reports a regression, and the second does not. The changes are the same in both. I rebased the PR then did the second perf run because I noticed that the primary regression in it was very commonly seen in spurious regression reports.
I do not know what the perf run will report when this is merged. I would not be surprised to see regression or neutral, but the cachegrind diffs for the regression point at `try_mark_previous_green` which is a common source of inexplicable regressions and I don't think should be perturbed by this PR.
I'm not opposed to adding a regression test such as
```rust
fn main() {
println!("{}", [37; 1 << 30].len());
}
```
But that program takes 1 minute to compile and consumes 4.6 GB of memory then writes that much to disk. Is that a concerning amount of resource use for a test?
r? `@nnethercote`
