We store the obligation that caused the overflow as part of the OverflowError, and report it at the public API endpoints (rather than in the implementation internals).
- `ParamEnv::empty()` -- does not reveal all, good for typeck
- `ParamEnv::reveal_all()` -- does, good for trans
- `param_env.with_reveal_all()` -- converts an existing parameter environment
Improvements:
- Use Clone not Copy for the "simple cases"
- Separate TypeFoldable and Lift for the "simple cases"
- Support generics type parameters
- Support named fields in enum variants
- etc
Type-live-for-region obligations on DUMMY_NODE_ID cause an ICE, and it
turns out that in the few cases they are needed, these obligations are not
needed anyway because they are verified elsewhere.
Fixes#46069.
DefaultImpl is a highly confusing name for what we now call auto impls,
as in `impl Send for ..`. The name auto impl is not formally decided
but for sanity anything is better than `DefaultImpl` which refers
neither to `default impl` nor to `impl Default`.
Generate builtin impls for `Clone`
This fixes a long-standing ICE and limitation where some builtin types implement `Copy` but not `Clone` (whereas `Clone` is a super trait of `Copy`).
However, this PR has a few side-effects:
* `Clone` is now marked as a lang item.
* `[T; N]` is now `Clone` if `T: Clone` (currently, only if `T: Copy` and for `N <= 32`).
* `fn foo<'a>() where &'a mut (): Clone { }` won't compile anymore because of how bounds for builtin traits are handled (e.g. same thing currently if you replace `Clone` by `Copy` in this example). Of course this function is unusable anyway, an error would pop as soon as it is called.
Hence, I'm wondering wether this PR would need an RFC...
Also, cc-ing @nikomatsakis, @arielb1.
Related issues: #28229, #24000.
- Point out the origin of a type requirement when it is the return type
of a method
- Point out possibly missing semicolon when the return type is () and
the implicit return makes sense as a statement
- Suggest changing the return type of methods with default return type
- Don't suggest changing the return type on fn main()
- Don't suggest changing the return type on impl fn
In general having all these different structs for "origins" is not
great, since equating types can cause obligations and vice-versa. I
think we should gradually collapse these things. We almost certainly
also need to invest a big more energy into the `error_reporting` code to
rationalize it: this PR does kind of the minimal effort in that
direction.
Irina Popa
Matthew Jasper
John Kåre Alsaker
Aravind Gollakota
Niko Matsakis
Fabian Zaiser
Tatsuyuki Ishi
scalexm
Ariel Ben-Yehuda
leonardo.yvens
Eduard-Mihai Burtescu
Alex Crichton
bors
Guillaume Gomez
Zack M. Davis
Masaki Hara
Esteban Küber
Mark-Simulacrum
Masood Malekghassemi