rust/tests/ui/issues/issue-22603.rs

//@ check-pass

#![feature(unboxed_closures, fn_traits)]

struct Foo;

impl<A> FnOnce<(A,)> for Foo {
    type Output = ();
    extern "rust-call" fn call_once(self, (_,): (A,)) {
    }
}

fn main() {
    println!("{:?}", Foo("bar"));
}
compiletest: Validate pass modes harder 2019-06-12 14:56:51 +00:00			`//@ check-pass`

Removed `#[rustc_error]` from tests that are all `// compile-pass`. I also added `// skip-codegen` to each one, to address potential concerns that this change would otherwise slow down our test suite spending time generating code for files that are really just meant to be checks of compiler diagnostics. (However, I will say: My preference is to not use `// skip-codegen` if one can avoid it. We can use all the testing of how we drive LLVM that we can get...) (Updated post rebase.) 2018-10-31 12:08:01 +00:00			`#![feature(unboxed_closures, fn_traits)]`
compiletest: Remove `skip-codegen` 2019-06-12 15:18:32 +00:00
Add tests for various issues Fixes #11740. Fixes #19601. Fixes #22603 Fixes #22789. Fixes #26614. r? @Mark-Simulacrum. 2017-06-18 16:18:08 +00:00			`struct Foo;`

			`impl<A> FnOnce<(A,)> for Foo {`
			`type Output = ();`
			`extern "rust-call" fn call_once(self, (_,): (A,)) {`
			`}`
			`}`
Removed `#[rustc_error]` from tests that are all `// compile-pass`. I also added `// skip-codegen` to each one, to address potential concerns that this change would otherwise slow down our test suite spending time generating code for files that are really just meant to be checks of compiler diagnostics. (However, I will say: My preference is to not use `// skip-codegen` if one can avoid it. We can use all the testing of how we drive LLVM that we can get...) (Updated post rebase.) 2018-10-31 12:08:01 +00:00
			`fn main() {`
Add tests for various issues Fixes #11740. Fixes #19601. Fixes #22603 Fixes #22789. Fixes #26614. r? @Mark-Simulacrum. 2017-06-18 16:18:08 +00:00			`println!("{:?}", Foo("bar"));`
			`}`