use rustc_errors::Diagnostic;
use rustc_hir::def_id::{DefId, CRATE_DEF_ID, LOCAL_CRATE};
use rustc_hir::CRATE_HIR_ID;
-use rustc_infer::infer::{InferCtxt, TyCtxtInferExt};
+use rustc_infer::infer::{DefiningAnchor, InferCtxt, TyCtxtInferExt};
use rustc_infer::traits::util;
use rustc_middle::traits::specialization_graph::OverlapMode;
use rustc_middle::ty::fast_reject::{DeepRejectCtxt, TreatParams};
return None;
}
- let infcx = tcx.infer_ctxt().build();
- let selcx = &mut SelectionContext::intercrate(&infcx);
+ let infcx =
+ tcx.infer_ctxt().with_opaque_type_inference(DefiningAnchor::Bubble).intercrate().build();
+ let selcx = &mut SelectionContext::new(&infcx);
let overlaps =
overlap(selcx, skip_leak_check, impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id, overlap_mode).is_some();
if !overlaps {
// In the case where we detect an error, run the check again, but
// this time tracking intercrate ambiguity causes for better
// diagnostics. (These take time and can lead to false errors.)
- let infcx = tcx.infer_ctxt().build();
- let selcx = &mut SelectionContext::intercrate(&infcx);
+ let infcx =
+ tcx.infer_ctxt().with_opaque_type_inference(DefiningAnchor::Bubble).intercrate().build();
+ let selcx = &mut SelectionContext::new(&infcx);
selcx.enable_tracking_intercrate_ambiguity_causes();
Some(overlap(selcx, skip_leak_check, impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id, overlap_mode).unwrap())
}
impl_def_id: DefId,
) -> ty::ImplHeader<'tcx> {
let tcx = selcx.tcx();
- let impl_substs = selcx.infcx().fresh_substs_for_item(DUMMY_SP, impl_def_id);
+ let impl_substs = selcx.infcx.fresh_substs_for_item(DUMMY_SP, impl_def_id);
let header = ty::ImplHeader {
impl_def_id,
impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id, overlap_mode
);
- selcx.infcx().probe_maybe_skip_leak_check(skip_leak_check.is_yes(), |snapshot| {
+ selcx.infcx.probe_maybe_skip_leak_check(skip_leak_check.is_yes(), |snapshot| {
overlap_within_probe(selcx, impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id, overlap_mode, snapshot)
})
}
overlap_mode: OverlapMode,
snapshot: &CombinedSnapshot<'tcx>,
) -> Option<OverlapResult<'tcx>> {
- let infcx = selcx.infcx();
+ let infcx = selcx.infcx;
if overlap_mode.use_negative_impl() {
- if negative_impl(selcx, impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id)
- || negative_impl(selcx, impl2_def_id, impl1_def_id)
+ if negative_impl(infcx.tcx, impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id)
+ || negative_impl(infcx.tcx, impl2_def_id, impl1_def_id)
{
return None;
}
debug!("overlap: intercrate_ambiguity_causes={:#?}", intercrate_ambiguity_causes);
let involves_placeholder =
- matches!(selcx.infcx().region_constraints_added_in_snapshot(snapshot), Some(true));
+ matches!(selcx.infcx.region_constraints_added_in_snapshot(snapshot), Some(true));
- let impl_header = selcx.infcx().resolve_vars_if_possible(impl1_header);
+ let impl_header = selcx.infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(impl1_header);
Some(OverlapResult { impl_header, intercrate_ambiguity_causes, involves_placeholder })
}
// Do `a` and `b` unify? If not, no overlap.
debug!("equate_impl_headers(impl1_header={:?}, impl2_header={:?}", impl1_header, impl2_header);
selcx
- .infcx()
+ .infcx
.at(&ObligationCause::dummy(), ty::ParamEnv::empty())
.eq_impl_headers(impl1_header, impl2_header)
.map(|infer_ok| infer_ok.obligations)
"implicit_negative(impl1_header={:?}, impl2_header={:?}, obligations={:?})",
impl1_header, impl2_header, obligations
);
- let infcx = selcx.infcx();
+ let infcx = selcx.infcx;
let opt_failing_obligation = impl1_header
.predicates
.iter()
/// Given impl1 and impl2 check if both impls are never satisfied by a common type (including
/// where-clauses) If so, return true, they are disjoint and false otherwise.
-fn negative_impl<'cx, 'tcx>(
- selcx: &mut SelectionContext<'cx, 'tcx>,
- impl1_def_id: DefId,
- impl2_def_id: DefId,
-) -> bool {
+fn negative_impl<'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, impl1_def_id: DefId, impl2_def_id: DefId) -> bool {
debug!("negative_impl(impl1_def_id={:?}, impl2_def_id={:?})", impl1_def_id, impl2_def_id);
- let tcx = selcx.infcx().tcx;
// Create an infcx, taking the predicates of impl1 as assumptions:
let infcx = tcx.infer_ctxt().build();
return true;
};
- let selcx = &mut SelectionContext::new(&infcx);
let opt_failing_obligation = obligations
.into_iter()
.chain(more_obligations)
- .find(|o| negative_impl_exists(selcx, o, body_def_id));
+ .find(|o| negative_impl_exists(infcx, o, body_def_id));
if let Some(failing_obligation) = opt_failing_obligation {
debug!("overlap: obligation unsatisfiable {:?}", failing_obligation);
}
/// Try to prove that a negative impl exist for the given obligation and its super predicates.
-#[instrument(level = "debug", skip(selcx))]
-fn negative_impl_exists<'cx, 'tcx>(
- selcx: &SelectionContext<'cx, 'tcx>,
+#[instrument(level = "debug", skip(infcx))]
+fn negative_impl_exists<'tcx>(
+ infcx: &InferCtxt<'tcx>,
o: &PredicateObligation<'tcx>,
body_def_id: DefId,
) -> bool {
- if resolve_negative_obligation(selcx.infcx().fork(), o, body_def_id) {
+ if resolve_negative_obligation(infcx.fork(), o, body_def_id) {
return true;
}
// Try to prove a negative obligation exists for super predicates
- for o in util::elaborate_predicates(selcx.tcx(), iter::once(o.predicate)) {
- if resolve_negative_obligation(selcx.infcx().fork(), &o, body_def_id) {
+ for o in util::elaborate_predicates(infcx.tcx, iter::once(o.predicate)) {
+ if resolve_negative_obligation(infcx.fork(), &o, body_def_id) {
return true;
}
}