Check that return type is WF in typeck

[gurry]

Ensures that non-WF types do not pass typeck and then later ICE in MIR/const eval

Fixes #121443

[rustbot]

r? @estebank

rustbot has assigned @estebank.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[gurry]

r? @oli-obk

This is an alternative way of fixing #121443 as proposed by you and lcnr in PR #121726.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Looks like you have a better span than the wfcheck uses. We can either fix the wfcheck span, or remove it entirely considering typeck now handles it. Doesn't have to be in this PR, we can land it if perf is clean

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ace4367 with merge 0b55e50...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0b55e50 (0b55e50ecaef430e539227d67e77c49718da6ef2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0b55e50): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.9%	[3.5%, 4.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.9%, 3.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-4.0%, -2.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-4.0%, 4.1%]	5

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 646.206s -> 647.371s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 175.06 MiB -> 175.02 MiB (-0.02%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ace4367 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ace4367 with merge 4282576...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 4282576 to master...

[matthiaskrgr]

guess this also fixed #121612 #121424 🎉

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4282576): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.8%	[-7.8%, -7.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-7.8%	[-7.8%, -7.8%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[2.7%, 3.9%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 652.903s -> 649.016s (-0.60%)
Artifact size: 172.55 MiB -> 172.57 MiB (0.01%)

[gurry]

guess this also fixed #121612 #121424 🎉

I'll add tests for these.

Edit
Added: #122224