nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-06-05 19:58:32 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

When checking loop bodies and do-expr bodies, don't require the expected type to exist

Browse Source 
If the expected type is none (due to a type error), we shouldn't fail with an ICE, but
rather, just print out another type error. Changed the do-expr type error message to
make sense in this context (see the test case for how it works).

Closes #3044.
This commit is contained in:
Tim Chevalier 2012-08-02 18:11:29 -07:00
parent c9c3a49bfc
commit c2bb2f0837
2 changed files with 21 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

18
src/rustc/middle/typeck/check.rs
View File

@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ fn check_expr_with_unifier(fcx: @fn_ctxt,
_ { none }
}
}
ast::not | ast::neg { some(expected.get()) }
ast::not | ast::neg { expected }
ast::deref { none }
}
};
@ -1475,10 +1475,11 @@ fn check_expr_with_unifier(fcx: @fn_ctxt,
capture::check_capture_clause(tcx, expr.id, cap_clause);
}
ast::expr_fn_block(decl, body, cap_clause) {
// Take the prototype from the expected type, but default to block:
let proto = unpack_expected(fcx, expected, |sty|
alt sty { ty::ty_fn({proto, _}) { some(proto) } _ { none } }
).get_default(ast::proto_box);
// Take the prototype from the expected type, but default to block:
let proto = proto_1.get_default(ast::proto_box);
check_expr_fn(fcx, expr, proto, decl, body, false, expected);
capture::check_capture_clause(tcx, expr.id, cap_clause);
}
@ -1489,9 +1490,9 @@ fn check_expr_with_unifier(fcx: @fn_ctxt,
// parameter. The catch here is that we need to validate two things:
// 1. a closure that returns a bool is expected
// 2. the cloure that was given returns unit
let expected_sty = unpack_expected(fcx, expected, |x| some(x)).get();
let expected_sty = unpack_expected(fcx, expected, |x| some(x));
let (inner_ty, proto) = alt expected_sty {
ty::ty_fn(fty) {
some(ty::ty_fn(fty)) {
alt infer::mk_subty(fcx.infcx, fty.output, ty::mk_bool(tcx)) {
result::ok(_) {}
result::err(err) {
@ -1526,14 +1527,15 @@ fn check_expr_with_unifier(fcx: @fn_ctxt,
}
}
ast::expr_do_body(b) {
let expected_sty = unpack_expected(fcx, expected, |x| some(x)).get();
let expected_sty = unpack_expected(fcx, expected, |x| some(x));
let (inner_ty, proto) = alt expected_sty {
ty::ty_fn(fty) {
some(ty::ty_fn(fty)) {
(ty::mk_fn(tcx, fty), fty.proto)
}
_ {
tcx.sess.span_fatal(expr.span, ~"a `do` function's last argument \
should be of function type");
tcx.sess.span_fatal(expr.span, ~"Non-function passed to a `do` \
function as its last argument, or wrong number of arguments \
passed to a `do` function");
}
};
alt check b.node {

9
src/test/compile-fail/issue-3044.rs Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
// error-pattern: Non-function passed to a `do` function as its last argument, or wrong number of arguments passed to a `do` function
fn main() {
let needlesArr: ~[char] = ~['a', 'f'];
do vec::foldr(needlesArr) |x, y| {
}
// for some reason if I use the new error syntax for the two error messages this generates,
// the test runner gets confused -- tjc
}