-Znext-solver instantiate predicate binder without recanonicalizing goal

[lcnr]

This strengthens the leak check to match the old trait solver. The new trait solver now also instantiates higher ranked goals in the same scope as candidate selection, so the leak check in each candidate detects placeholder errors involving this higher ranked goal.

E.g. let's look at tests/ui/higher-ranked/leak-check/leak-check-in-selection-2.rs

trait Trait<T, U> {}
impl<'a> Trait<&'a str, &'a str> for () {}
impl<'a> Trait<&'a str, String> for () {}
fn impls_trait<T: for<'a> Trait<&'a str, U>, U>() {}

fn main() {
    impls_trait::<(), _>();
}

Here proving (): for<'a> Trait<&'a str, ?u> via impl<'a> Trait<&'a str, &'a str> for () equates ?u with &'!a str which results in a leak check error as ?u cannot name 'a. If this leak check error happens while considering candidates we drop the first impl and infer ?u to String. If not, this remains ambiguous.

This behavior is a bit iffy, see the FCP proposal in #119820 for more details on why this current behavior is somewhat undesirable. However, considering placeholders from higher-ranked goals for candidate selection does allow more code to compile and a lot of the code feels like it should compile. This caused us to revert the change of #119820 in #127568.

I originally expected that we can avoid breakage with the new solver differently here, e.g. by considering OR-region constraints. However, doing so is a significant change and I don't have a great idea for how that should work. Matching the old solver behavior for now should not make this cleaner approach any more difficult in the future, so let's just go with what actually allows us to stabilize the new solver for now.

This PR changing the new solver to match the behavior of the old one wrt the leak check. As the new solver is already used by default in coherence, this allows more code to compile, see tests/ui/higher-ranked/leak-check/leak-check-in-selection-7-coherence.rs:

struct W<T, U>(T, U);

trait Trait<T> {}
// using this impl results in a higher-ranked region error.
impl<'a> Trait<W<&'a str, &'a str>> for () {}
impl<'a> Trait<W<&'a str, String>> for () {}

trait NotString {}
impl NotString for &str {}
impl NotString for u32 {}


trait Overlap<U> {}
impl<T: for<'a> Trait<W<&'a str, U>>, U> Overlap<U> for T {}
impl<U: NotString> Overlap<U> for () {}

fn main() {}

This behavior is quite arbitrary and not something I expect users to rely on in practice, however, it should still go through an FCP imo.

r? @BoxyUwU originally implemented by @compiler-errors in #136997. Closes rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#120.

[rustbot]

changes to inspect_obligations.rs

cc @compiler-errors, @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

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

[lcnr]

@rfcbot fcp merge

[rust-rfcbot]

Team member @lcnr has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @BoxyUwU
• @compiler-errors
• @jackh726
• @lcnr
• @nikomatsakis
• @oli-obk
• @spastorino

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[lcnr]

@bors rollup=never

[BoxyUwU]

much cleaner, nice :>

[jackh726]

This comment is out of date now?

[jackh726]

Well, maybe. Not sure actually.

[lcnr]

this comment still describes what we're testing 😁 could slightly reword it to make it clear that we do leak check here now

[rust-rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔