diff --git a/text/3027-infallible-promotion.md b/text/3027-infallible-promotion.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..293372f49d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/3027-infallible-promotion.md
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+- Feature Name: infallible_lifetime_extension
+- Start Date: 2020-11-08
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3027](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3027)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#80619](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80619)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Restrict (implicit) [promotion][rfc1414], such as lifetime extension of rvalues, to infallible operations.
+
+[rfc1414]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1414-rvalue_static_promotion.md
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+## Background on promotion and lifetime extension 
+
+Rvalue promotion (as it was originally called) describes the process of taking an rvalue that can be computed at compile-time, and "promoting" it to a constant, so that references to that rvalue can have `'static` lifetime.
+It has been introduced by [RFC 1414][rfc1414].
+The scope of what exactly is being promoted in which context has been extended over the years in an ad-hoc manner, and the underlying mechanism of promotion (to extract a part of a larger body of code into a separate constant) is now also used for purposes other than making references have `'statc` lifetime.
+To account for this, the const-eval WG [agreed on the following terminology][promotion-status]:
+* Making references have `'static` lifetime is called "lifetime extension".
+* The underlying mechanism of extracting part of some code into a constant is called "promotion".
+
+Promotion is currently used for four compiler features:
+* lifetime extension
+* non-`Copy` array repeat expressions
+* functions where some arguments must be known at compile-time (`#[rustc_args_required_const]`)
+* `const` operands of `asm!`
+
+These uses of promotion fall into two categories:
+* *Explicit* promotion refers to promotion where not promoting is simply not an option: `#[rustc_args_required_const]` and `asm!` *require* the value of this expression to be known at compile-time.
+* *Implicit* promotion refers to promotion that might not be required: a reference might not actually need to have `'static` lifetime, and an array repeat expression could be `Copy` (or the repeat count no larger than 1).
+
+For more details, see the [const-eval WG writeup][promotion-status].
+
+## The problem with implicit promotion
+
+Explicit promotion is mostly fine as-is.
+This RFC is concerned with implicit promotion.
+The problem with implicit promotion is best demonstrated by the following example:
+
+```rust
+fn make_something() {
+  if false { &(1/0) }
+}
+```
+
+If the compiler decides to do implicit promotion here, the code is changed to something like
+
+```rust
+fn make_something() {
+  if false {
+    const VAL: &i32 = &(1/0);
+    VAL
+  }
+}
+```
+
+However, this code would fail to compile!
+When doing code generation for a function, all its constants have to be evaluated, including the ones in dead code, since in general we cannot know that we are compiling dead code.
+(In fact, there is even code that [relies on failing constants stopping compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67191).)
+When evaluating `VAL`, a panic is triggered due to division by zero, so any code that needs to know the value of `VAL` is stuck as there is no such value.
+
+This is a problem because the original code (pre-promotion) works just fine: the division never actually happens.
+It is only because the compiler decided to extract the division into a separately evaluated constant that it even becomes a problem.
+Notice that this is a problem only for implicit promotion, because with explicit promotion, the value *has* to be known at compile-time -- so stopping compilation if the value cannot be determined is the right behavior.
+
+To solve this problem, every part of the compiler that works with constants needs to be able to handle the case where the constant *has no defined value*, and continue in some correct way.
+This is hard to get right, and has lead to a number of problems over the years:
+* There has been at least one [soundness issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50814).
+* There are still outstanding [diagnostic issues](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61821).
+* Promotion needs a special [exception in const-value validation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67534).
+* All code handling constants has to carry [extra complexity to support promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75461)
+
+This RFC proposes to fix all these problems at once, by restricting implicit promotion to those expression whose evaluation cannot fail.
+This is the last step in a series of changes that have been going on for quite some time, starting with the [introduction](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53851) of the `#[rustc_promotable]` attribute to control which function calls may be subject to implicit promotion (the original RFC said that all calls to `const fn` should be promoted, but as user-defined `const fn` got closer and closer, that seemed less and less like a good idea, due to all the ways in which evaluating a `const fn` can fail).
+Together with [some planned changes for evaluation of regular constants](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71800), this means that all CTFE failures can be made hard errors, greatly simplifying the parts of the compiler that trigger evaluation of constants and handle the resulting value or error.
+
+For more details, see [the MCP that preceded this RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/58).
+
+[promotion-status]: https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/33053bb2c9a0c6a17acd3116dd47bbb360e060db/promotion.md
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+(Based on [RFC 1414][rfc1414])
+
+Inside a function body's block:
+
+- If a shared reference to a constexpr rvalue is taken. (`&<constexpr>`),
+- And the constexpr does not contain a `UnsafeCell { ... }` constructor,
+- And the constexpr only consists of operations that will definitely succeed to
+  evaluate at compile-time,
+- And the resulting value does not need dropping,
+- Then instead of translating the value into a stack slot, translate
+  it into a static memory location and give the resulting reference a
+  `'static` lifetime.
+
+Operations that definitely succeed at the time of writing the RFC include:
+- literals of any kind
+- constructors (struct/enum/union/tuple)
+- struct/tuple field accesses
+- arithmetic and logical operators that do not involve division: `+`/`-`/`*`, all bitwise and shift operators, all unary operators
+
+Note that arithmetic overflow is not a problem: an addition in debug mode is compiled to a `CheckedAdd` MIR operation that never fails, which returns an `(<int>, bool)`, and is followed by a check of said `bool` to possibly raise a panic.
+We only ever promote the `CheckedAdd`, so evaluation of the promoted will never fail, even if the operation overflows.
+For example, `&(1 + u32::MAX)` turns into something like:
+```rust
+const C: (u32, bool) = CheckedAdd(1, u32::MAX); // evaluates to (0, true).
+assert!(C.1 == false);
+&C.0
+```
+See [this prior RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1211-mir.md#overflow-checking) for further details.
+
+However, also note that operators being infallible is more subtle than it might seem.
+In particular, it requires that all constants of integer type (and even all integer-typed fields of all constants) be proper integers, not pointers cast to integers.
+The following code shows a problematic example:
+```rust
+const FOO: usize = &42 as *const i32 as usize;
+let x: &usize = &(FOO * 3);
+```
+`FOO*3` cannot be evaluated during CTFE, so to ensure that multiplication is infallible, we need to ensure that all constants used in promotion are proper integers.
+This is currently ensured by the "validity check" that is performed on the final value of each constant: the check recursively traverses the type of the constant and ensures that the data matches that type.
+
+Operations that might fail include:
+- `/`/`%`
+- `panic!` (including the assertion that follows `Checked*` arithmetic to ensure that no overflow happened)
+- array/slice indexing
+- any unsafe operation
+- `const fn` calls (as they might do any of the above)
+
+Notably absent from *both* of the above list is dereferencing a reference.
+This operation is, in principle, infallible---but due to the concern mentioned above about validity of consts, it is only infallible if the validity check in constants traverses through references.
+Currently, the check stops when hitting a reference to a static, so currently, dereferencing a reference can *not* be considered an infallible operation for the purpose of promotion.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+See above for (hopefully) all the required details.
+What exactly the rules will end up being for which operations can be promoted will depend on experimentation to avoid breaking too much existing code, as discussed below.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+The biggest drawback is that this will break some existing code.
+Compared to the status quo, this means the following expressions are not implicitly promoted any more:
+* Division, modulo, array/slice indexing
+* `const fn` calls in `const`/`static` bodies (`const fn` are already not being implicitly promoted in `fn` and `const fn` bodies)
+
+If code relies on implicit promotion of these operations, it will stop to compile.
+Crater runs should be used all along the way to ensure that the fall-out is acceptable.
+The language team will be involved (via FCP) in each breaking change to make this judgment call.
+If too much code is broken, various ways to weaken this proposal (at the expense of more technical debt, sometimes across several parts of the compiler) are [described blow][rationale-and-alternatives].
+
+The long-term plan is that such code can switch to [inline `const` expressions](2920-inline-const.md) instead.
+However, inline `const` expressions are still in the process of being implemented, and for now are specified to not support code that depends on generic parameters in the context, which is a loss of expressivity when compared with implicit promotion.
+More complex work-around are possible for this using associated `const`, but they can become quite tedious.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+The rationale has been described with the motivation.
+
+Unless we want to keep supporting fallible const-evaluation indefinitely, the main alternatives are devising more precise analyses to determine if some operation is infallible.
+For example, we could still perform implicit promotion for division and modulo if the divisor is a non-zero literal.
+We could also have `CheckedDiv` and `CheckedMod` operations that, similar to operations like `CheckedAdd`, always returns a result of the right type together with a `bool` saying if the result is valid.
+We could still perform *array* indexing if the index is a constant and in-bounds.
+For slices, we could have an analysis that predicts the (minimum) length of the slice.
+Notice that promotion happens in generic code and can depend on associated constants, so we cannot, in general, *evaluate* the implicit promotion candidate to check if that causes any errors.
+
+We could also decide to still perform implicit promotion of potentially fallible operations in the bodies of `const`s and `static`s.
+(This would mean that the RFC only changes behavior of implicit promotion in `fn` and `const fn` bodies.)
+This is possible because that code is not subject to code generation, it is only interpreted by the CTFE engine.
+The engine will only evaluate the part of the code that is actually being run, and thus can avoid evaluating promoteds in dead code.
+However, this means that all other consumers of this code (such as pretty-printing and optimizations) must *not* evaluate promoteds that they encounter, since that evaluation may fail.
+This will incur technical debt in all of those places, as we need to carefully ensure not to eagerly evaluate all constants that we encounter.
+We also need to be careful to still evaluate all user-defined constants even inside promoteds in dead code (because, remember, code may rely on the fact that compilation will fail if any constant that is syntactically used in a function fails to evaluated).
+Note that this is *not* an option for code generation, i.e., for code in `fn` and `const fn`: all code needs to be translated to LLVM, even possibly dead code, so we have to evaluate all constants that we encounter.
+
+If there are some standard library `const fn` that cannot fail to evaluate, and that form the bulk of the function calls being implicitly promoted, we could add the `#[rustc_promotable]` attribute to them to enable implicit promotion.
+This will not help, however, if there is plenty of code relying on implicit promotion of user-defined `const fn`.
+
+Conversely, if this plan all works out, one alternative proposal that goes even further is to restrict implicit promotion to expressions that would be permitted in a pattern.
+This would avoid adding a new class of expression in between "patterns" and "const-evaluable".
+On the other hand, it is much more restrictive (basically allowing only literals and constructors), and does not actually help simplify the compiler.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+A few changes have landed in the recent past that already move us, step-by-step, towards the goal outlined in this RFC:
+* Treat `const fn` like `fn` for promotability: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75502, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76411
+* Do not promote `union` field accesses: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77526
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+The main open question is to what extend existing code relies on lifetime extension of fallible operations, i.e., if we can get away with the plan outlined here.
+(Lifetime extension is currently the only stable form of implicit promotion, and thus the only one relevant for backwards compatibility.)
+In `fn` and `const fn`, only a few fallible operations remain: division, modulo, and slice/array indexing.
+In `const` and `static`, we additionally promote calls to arbitrary `const fn`, which of course could fail in arbitrary ways -- crater experiments will have to show if code actually relies on this.
+A fall-back plan in case this RFC would break too much code has been [described above][rationale-and-alternatives].
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+A potential next step after this RFC could be to tackle the remaining main promotion "hack", the `#[rustc_promotable]` attribute.
+We now know exactly what this attribute expresses: this `const fn` may never fail to evaluate (in particular, it may not panic).
+This provides a theoretical path to stabilization of this attribute, backed by an analysis that ensures that the function indeed does not panic.
+(However, once inline `const` expressions with generic parameters are stable, this does not actually grant any extra expressivity, just a slight increase in convenience.)