Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: Not posting the entire 1.7K lines backtrace :upsidedownface: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
You can also reproduce this in the rustc repo itself where will encounter the error with
Reduced: label F-typealiasimpl_trait
Found another repro I think: this one bisects to
`
prioritize
going to also link and as other reports of the same issue
WG-prioritization assigning priority (). label -I-prioritize +P-medium
Ok, after a bit more back ond forth , I'm tentatively bumping this issue to P-critical and raise these questions (echoing the comments from the discussion): would it make sense to revert ? cc or would it make sense to revert (which IIUC leaked in the std library an unstable nightly only feature) ? cc Next week Rust 1.72 will be released, artifacts are going to be build real soon, I think. Thanks for additional comments to help improve my understanding of the context here. label -P-medium +P-critical
The underlying issue here is an issue with TAIT. was an implementation-only change simplifying some backtrace code in that was made under the assumption that TAIT was reliable enough to be used inside . As it is not user-facing it should be easily revertible. So the question here is whether it is safer to get TAIT working (potentially by reverting ?) so it can be used internally or to just hold off on using it until the issue has been resolved, reapplying once that happens. I have no compiler experience, but my initial hunch would be that the library change is preferable for now. I'll get a PR ready until tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it.
should not be reverted. All it does is cause us to now eagerly reveal opaques that were being skipped over during normalization, which means that we're just not hitting this code anymore: It does not introduce a bug, it just reveals one that already existed. I'm gonna use the minimized example () here. What's happening here is that we're generating a drop shim for that looks like: which then tries to validate that . However, it has type , where is a , which does not hit the code I linked above. Before , we'd emit something that looks like: which is a field that is incompletely normalized, but does* hit the code above.
Submitted the PR reverting : .
fixes this issue by not considering mir validity on shims until they have been optimized, which uses the reveal-all param-env for that shim. This ICE shouldn't be possible to trigger without , since it has to do with one of the intra-pass mir validations that are only done when that flag is active: I don't personally think that needs to be reverted, either.
This was also possible to trigger even before using an associated type. The test in exercises this too.

Related discussion:
text: }; debug!("make_shim({:?}) = untransformed {:?}", instance, result); <del> pm::run_passes( </del> <ins> // We don't validate MIR here because the shims may generate code that's // only valid in a reveal-all param-env. However, since we do initial // validation with the MirBuilt phase, which uses a user-facing param-env. // This causes validation errors when TAITs are involved. pm::run_passes_no_validate( </ins> tcx, &mut result, &[