rust/src/test/ui/issues/issue-3290.rs

// run-pass
#![feature(box_syntax)]
#![allow(dead_code)]

pub fn main() {
   let mut x: Box<_> = box 3;
   x = x;
   assert_eq!(*x, 3);
}
Add `// run-pass` annotations to all the tests under `ui/run-pass/`. (I may have accidentally added it to some auxilliary crates as well; my emacs-macro-based methodology was pretty crude.) 2018-08-30 12:18:55 +00:00			`// run-pass`
fallout: run-pass tests that use box. (many could be ported to `Box::new` instead in the future.) 2015-01-08 01:25:56 +00:00			`#![feature(box_syntax)]`
Warn about useless assignments of variables/fields to themselves 2021-07-14 13:34:28 +00:00			`#![allow(dead_code)]`
fallout: run-pass tests that use box. (many could be ported to `Box::new` instead in the future.) 2015-01-08 01:25:56 +00:00
test: Make all the run-pass tests use `pub fn main` 2014-01-03 23:30:54 +00:00			`pub fn main() {`
Add `: Box<_>` or `::Box<_>` type annotations to various places. This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to accommodate overloaded-`box`. ---- Note that this is not all of the changes necessary to accommodate Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry type ascription. (For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.) ---- There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done in coerce-match-calls.rs. ---- Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181. 2015-02-17 20:41:32 +00:00			`let mut x: Box<_> = box 3;`
testsuite: Add xfailed test cases 2013-05-21 20:12:31 +00:00			`x = x;`
			`assert_eq!(*x, 3);`
			`}`