nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-06-09 05:38:32 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
aad1db7373
rust/tests/ui/structs/default-field-values/invalid-const.stderr

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

18 lines
727 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
Move default-field-values tests into a subdirectory
2024-12-14 18:03:08 +00:00
--> $DIR/invalid-const.rs:5:19
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
|
LL | pub bax: u8 = panic!("asdf"),
Shorten span of panic failures in const context Previously, we included a redundant prefix on the panic message and a postfix of the location of the panic. The prefix didn't carry any additional information beyond "something failed", and the location of the panic is redundant with the diagnostic's span, which gets printed out even if its code is not shown. ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/assert-type-intrinsics.rs:11:9 | LL | MaybeUninit::<!>::uninit().assume_init(); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: aborted execution: attempted to instantiate uninhabited type `!` ``` ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of `Fail::<i32>::C` failed --> $DIR/collect-in-dead-closure.rs:9:19 | LL | const C: () = panic!(); | ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic | = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ``` ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/uninhabited.rs:41:9 | LL | assert!(false); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: assertion failed: false | = note: this error originates in the macro `assert` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ``` --- When the primary span for a const error is the same as the first frame in the const error report, skip it. ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24 | LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {}); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic | note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>` --> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5 | LL | panic!() | ^^^^^^^^ the failure occurred here = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ``` instead of ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5 | LL | panic!() | ^^^^^^^^ explicit panic | note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>` --> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5 | LL | panic!() | ^^^^^^^^ note: inside `_CONST` --> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24 | LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {}); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ``` --- Revert order of constant evaluation errors Point at the code the user wrote first and std functions last. ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25 | LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {} | ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: Some error occurred | note: called from `my_fn` --> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5 | LL | panic!("Some error occurred"); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ``` instead of ``` error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed --> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5 | LL | panic!("Some error occurred"); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Some error occurred | note: called from `<() as ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}>>::{constant#0}` --> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25 | LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {} | ^^^^^^^^ = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info) ```
2025-02-03 18:43:55 +00:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: asdf
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
error[E0080]: evaluation of `Baz::<C>::bat::{constant#0}` failed
Move default-field-values tests into a subdirectory
2024-12-14 18:03:08 +00:00
--> $DIR/invalid-const.rs:11:19
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
|
LL | pub bat: u8 = 130 + 130,
| ^^^^^^^^^ attempt to compute `130_u8 + 130_u8`, which would overflow
Unconditionally error at definition if default field value has const errors Emit E0080 always on struct definition with default fields that have unconditional const errors and remove `default_field_always_invalid_const` lint.
2024-12-06 23:08:17 +00:00
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink