-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
test the unleashed Miri #67580
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test the unleashed Miri #67580
Changes from 3 commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ | ||
// compile-flags: -Zunleash-the-miri-inside-of-you | ||
// ignore-x86 FIXME: missing sysroot spans (#53081) | ||
#![deny(const_err)] | ||
|
||
use std::mem::ManuallyDrop; | ||
|
||
fn main() {} | ||
|
||
static TEST_OK: () = { | ||
let v: Vec<i32> = Vec::new(); | ||
let _v = ManuallyDrop::new(v); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
// Make sure we catch executing bad drop functions. | ||
// The actual error is located in `real_drop_in_place` so we can't capture it with the | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. you can use But in general I think it would be useful to have There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That would be a new compiletest feature, right, nothing I can do now? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yea it was just random musings |
||
// error annotations here. | ||
static TEST_BAD: () = { | ||
let _v: Vec<i32> = Vec::new(); | ||
//~^ WARN skipping const check | ||
}; |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
warning: skipping const checks | ||
--> $DIR/drop.rs:18:9 | ||
| | ||
LL | let _v: Vec<i32> = Vec::new(); | ||
| ^^ | ||
|
||
error[E0080]: could not evaluate static initializer | ||
--> $SRC_DIR/libcore/ptr/mod.rs:LL:COL | ||
| | ||
LL | / unsafe fn real_drop_in_place<T: ?Sized>(to_drop: &mut T) { | ||
LL | | // Code here does not matter - this is replaced by the | ||
LL | | // real drop glue by the compiler. | ||
LL | | real_drop_in_place(to_drop) | ||
LL | | } | ||
| |_^ calling non-const function `<std::vec::Vec<i32> as std::ops::Drop>::drop` | ||
| | ||
::: $DIR/drop.rs:20:1 | ||
| | ||
LL | }; | ||
| - inside call to `std::ptr::real_drop_in_place::<std::vec::Vec<i32>> - shim(Some(std::vec::Vec<i32>))` at $DIR/drop.rs:20:1 | ||
|
||
error: aborting due to previous error | ||
|
||
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You don't like my useless variable names? 🙃
If we'd had the
_
name feature back when I wrote the test I'dve used thatThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd argue readable names are better even than
_
;)