Skip to content

generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts#155341

Open
khyperia wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
khyperia:non-type-const
Open

generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts#155341
khyperia wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
khyperia:non-type-const

Conversation

@khyperia
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@khyperia khyperia commented Apr 15, 2026

View all comments

tracking issue: #151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in feature(generic_const_args). These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. #154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU

@rustbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 15, 2026

changes to the core type system

cc @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

Some changes occurred in engine.rs, potentially modifying the public API of ObligationCtxt.

cc @lcnr

Some changes occurred in const_evaluatable.rs

cc @BoxyUwU

HIR ty lowering was modified

cc @fmease

changes to the core type system

cc @lcnr

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) labels Apr 15, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@BoxyUwU BoxyUwU left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cool ✨ two big picture things:

  1. you've changed evaluate_const to take an unevaluated const instead of a ty::Const. iirc we talked about doing this to make IACs work but since we've dropped support for them can those changes be reverted?
  2. if it would be kinda chill for you to do can you make the change of adding fields to AliasTermKind's variants be in a separate commit so it's easier to review just the "meaningful" stuff? If it's non-trivial/difficult it's fine to keep it as is 🤔

View changes since this review

Comment thread compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/collect/predicates_of.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/normalizes_to/free_alias.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/normalizes_to/inherent.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/predicate.rs Outdated
@khyperia
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

khyperia commented Apr 16, 2026

  • you've changed evaluate_const to take an unevaluated const instead of a ty::Const. iirc we talked about doing this to make IACs work but since we've dropped support for them can those changes be reverted?

yeah I guess, it just makes me sad to revert, the change seems nice :c :P - I've stashed the work so can maybe done sometime in the future

  • if it would be kinda chill for you to do can you make the change of adding fields to AliasTermKind's variants be in a separate commit so it's easier to review just the "meaningful" stuff? If it's non-trivial/difficult it's fine to keep it as is 🤔

done!

edit: ack, the split wasn't fully clean, there's a swap from is_type to pattern matching in the first commit that should be in the second commit, in normalize.rs, sowwy

edit: ok, pushed, moving the change to the other commit

cc @WaffleLapkin when AliasTermKind has been updated to store DefIds like you've done for AliasTyKind this can be removed and we can just call tcx.is_type_const(def) everywhere instead

I think the DefId is already available in all the relevant places - I don't think adding a is_type_const field is strictly necessary, I just thought it was cleaner/nicer, especially with the exhaustive pattern matching nice things. Totally reasonable for me to use tcx.is_type_const though, let me know what style you'd prefer!

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@BoxyUwU BoxyUwU left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not super fussy about the is_type_const field I guess. It probably doesn't really change much about how much effort it'll be for one of you or waffle to fix things up between this and #155392.

I think this PR basically just needs some more tests at this point. I'm thinking off the top of my head.

  • generic uses of free consts, e.g. FREE<N> so it can't just be immediately evaluated
  • equality rules of non-type consts, so for both free and associated consts we should have tests that:
    • ALIAS1 and ALIAS2 are equal if they evalaute to the same value (and aren't if they don't).
    • ALIAS<N> is only equal to itself and not other aliases with the same body

then it should be good to go

View changes since this review

@BoxyUwU
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

BoxyUwU commented Apr 20, 2026

oh also can you link to the tracking issue for gca in the PR description

@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

// Perhaps we could split EvaluateConstErr::HasGenericsOrInfers into HasGenerics
// and HasInfers or something, and make evaluate_const_and_instantiate change
// its behavior based on that, rather than it checking `has_non_region_infer`.
let target_args = ecx.resolve_vars_if_possible(target_args);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@khyperia khyperia Apr 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@BoxyUwU this is annoying and gross (see HACK comment), resolve_vars_if_possible is called twice on target_args. I could maybe clean this up in a follow-up PR? Or I could gut/refactor in this PR. I would slightly prefer doing it in a follow-up, but, let me know!

View changes since the review

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we probably should split EvaluateConstErr in two eventually yeah.

Can you move this resolve_vars_if_possible into evaluate_const_and_instantiate_normalizes_to_term. Right now it kind of detracts from understanding the high level logic of how normalization works

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@BoxyUwU BoxyUwU left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thx this looks good ✨

View changes since this review

Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/normalizes_to/anon_const.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/eval_ctxt/mod.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/project.rs Outdated
Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/eval_ctxt/mod.rs
@khyperia khyperia force-pushed the non-type-const branch 4 times, most recently from ce2009d to 556ad2f Compare May 1, 2026 10:55
@rustbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 1, 2026

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @tshepang

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@BoxyUwU BoxyUwU left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we have a test which would expose the "normalizing free alias to an infer var resulting in MIR typeck ICEs"? would be nice to add that revisioned on both old/new solver so we can show new solver working and if we allow GCA with old solver we know it also works

View changes since this review

Comment thread compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/normalizes_to/mod.rs Outdated
return;
}

// Require the new solver with GCA, because the old solver does not implement GCA correctly.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// Require the new solver with GCA, because the old solver does not implement GCA correctly.
// Require the new solver with GCA, because the old solver can't implement GCA correctly
// as it does not support normalization obligations for free and inherent consts.

@khyperia
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

khyperia commented May 1, 2026

do we have a test which would expose the "normalizing free alias to an infer var resulting in MIR typeck ICEs"?

Yes, tests/ui/const-generics/gca/ambiguous-on-failed-eval-with-vars-fail.rs is that test (specifically the test_free_mismatch function). That test used to ICE on the old solver and is the source of what we talked about of disabling the old solver on gca ✨

would be nice to add that revisioned on both old/new solver so we can show new solver working and if we allow GCA with old solver we know it also works

what do you mean by that? like, add a .old.stderr bless that's just, error: generic_const_exprs requires -Znext-solver=globally to be enabled?

@BoxyUwU
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

BoxyUwU commented May 1, 2026

like, add a .old.stderr bless that's just, error: generic_const_exprs requires -Znext-solver=globally to be enabled?

yeah, that way it'll change from that to incorrectly passing or something if we allow the feature in the old solver

@rustbot rustbot added the A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide label May 1, 2026
@khyperia khyperia force-pushed the non-type-const branch 2 times, most recently from 10217a1 to 16ab434 Compare May 1, 2026 16:32
@rust-bors rust-bors Bot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 5, 2026
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts

tracking issue: rust-lang#151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. rust-lang#154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
Rollup of 3 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #154861 (Add rlib digest to identify Rust object files)
 - #155341 (generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts)
 - #156014 (resolve: Catch "cannot reexport" errors from macros 2.0 better)
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts

tracking issue: rust-lang#151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. rust-lang#154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
@JonathanBrouwer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@bors r-
#156179 (comment)

@rust-bors rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels May 5, 2026
@rust-bors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rust-bors Bot commented May 5, 2026

This pull request was unapproved.

This PR was contained in the following rollups:

View changes since this unapproval

@rustbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 5, 2026

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@khyperia
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

khyperia commented May 5, 2026

apologies, @JonathanBrouwer !

boxy re-reviewed with me in zulip dms (the rollup failure was due to a merge conflict with #155543 which was merged only a few hours ago, which I now rebased to latest main again and fixed), so:

@bors r=BoxyUwU

@rust-bors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rust-bors Bot commented May 5, 2026

📌 Commit cb2c5fc has been approved by BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rust-bors rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels May 5, 2026
@JonathanBrouwer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No worries, these things happen, especially with soft conflicts there's really nothing you can do about them <3

jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts

tracking issue: rust-lang#151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. rust-lang#154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
@rust-bors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rust-bors Bot commented May 5, 2026

⌛ Testing commit cb2c5fc with merge e8140f1...

Workflow: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/25406820612

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts



tracking issue: #151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. #154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts

tracking issue: rust-lang#151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. rust-lang#154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
@jhpratt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jhpratt commented May 5, 2026

For encompassing rollup

@bors yield

@rust-bors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rust-bors Bot commented May 5, 2026

Auto build was cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

The next pull request likely to be tested is #156213.

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
Rollup of 12 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #155341 (generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts)
 - #156062 (Added command-line argument support for `wasm32-wali-linux-musl`)
 - #156159 ([AIX] add -bdbg:namedsects:ss link arg)
 - #156174 (Wasm: remove implicit `__heap_base`/`__data_end` exports)
 - #156186 (fix: remap ci-llvm debug paths via `-ffile-prefix-map`)
 - #156193 (port `rustc_ast*` crates from `box_` to `deref_patterns`)
 - #156201 (Don't run ui-fulldeps tests twice in stage 1)
 - #155808 (Always use `ConstFn` context for `const` closures)
 - #156105 (interpret: correctly deal with repr(transparent) enums)
 - #156148 (Use `all_impls` instead of handrolling it)
 - #156156 (Adjust getMCSubtargetInfo signature for LLVM 23+)
 - #156205 (move generalization test)
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request May 6, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts

tracking issue: rust-lang#151972

Non type consts should be usable in the type system in `feature(generic_const_args)`. These are directly plugged into the constant evaluator, unlike type consts, which are attempted to be reasoned about by the type system.

Inherent associated constants are not supported at this time, due to complications around how generic arguments are represented for them (it's currently a mess). The mess is being cleaned up (e.g. rust-lang#154758), so instead of trying to hack support in before the refactoring is done, let's just wait to be able to implement it more cleanly.

r? @BoxyUwU
rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2026
Rollup of 15 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #151122 (fix: more descriptive error message for enum to integer)
 - #155341 (generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts)
 - #156062 (Added command-line argument support for `wasm32-wali-linux-musl`)
 - #156159 ([AIX] add -bdbg:namedsects:ss link arg)
 - #156174 (Wasm: remove implicit `__heap_base`/`__data_end` exports)
 - #156186 (fix: remap ci-llvm debug paths via `-ffile-prefix-map`)
 - #156193 (port `rustc_ast*` crates from `box_` to `deref_patterns`)
 - #156201 (Don't run ui-fulldeps tests twice in stage 1)
 - #155808 (Always use `ConstFn` context for `const` closures)
 - #156105 (interpret: correctly deal with repr(transparent) enums)
 - #156148 (Use `all_impls` instead of handrolling it)
 - #156156 (Adjust getMCSubtargetInfo signature for LLVM 23+)
 - #156170 (add known-bug test for coroutine 'static-yields-non-'static unsoundness (#144442))
 - #156195 (Move tests codegen)
 - #156205 (move generalization test)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants