Remove rule that place loads may not happen with variant index set

Author: JakobDegen

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/validate.rs

@@ -246,12 +246,9 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for TypeChecker<'a, 'tcx> {
         self.super_projection_elem(local, proj_base, elem, context, location);
     }
 
-    fn visit_place(&mut self, place: &Place<'tcx>, _: PlaceContext, location: Location) {
+    fn visit_place(&mut self, place: &Place<'tcx>, _: PlaceContext, _: Location) {
         // Set off any `bug!`s in the type computation code
-        let ty = place.ty(&self.body.local_decls, self.tcx);
-        if ty.variant_index.is_some() {
-            self.fail(location, "Top level places may not have their variant index set!");
-        }
+        let _ = place.ty(&self.body.local_decls, self.tcx);
     }
 
     fn visit_rvalue(&mut self, rvalue: &Rvalue<'tcx>, location: Location) {

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs

@@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@ pub struct CopyNonOverlapping<'tcx> {
 ///    pointee type is unsized, the pointer additionally stored the value of the metadata.
 ///
 /// Computing a place may cause UB. One possibility is that the pointer used for a `Deref` may not
-/// be suitably aligned. Another possibility is that the place is not in bouns, meaning it does not
+/// be suitably aligned. Another possibility is that the place is not in bounds, meaning it does not
 /// point to an actual allocation.
 ///
 /// However, if this is actually UB and when the UB kicks in is undecided. This is being discussed
@@ -2315,10 +2315,9 @@ pub struct SourceScopeLocalData {
 /// This is what is implemented in miri today. Are these the semantics we want for MIR? Is this
 /// something we can even decide without knowing more about Rust's memory model?
 ///
-/// Loading a place that has its variant index set is not well-formed. However, note that this rule
-/// only applies to places appearing in MIR bodies. Many functions, such as [`Place::ty`], still
-/// accept such a place. If you write a function for which it might be ambiguous whether such a
-/// thing is accepted, make sure to document your choice clearly.
+/// **Needs clarifiation:** Is loading a place that has its variant index set well-formed? Miri
+/// currently implements it, but it seems like this may be something to check against in the
+/// validator.
 #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, TyEncodable, TyDecodable, Hash, HashStable)]
 pub enum Operand<'tcx> {
     /// Creates a value by loading the given place. The type of the place must be `Copy`