rust/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/avoid-invalid-mir.stderr

error: expected expression, found `let` statement
  --> $DIR/avoid-invalid-mir.rs:5:6
   |
LL |     !let y = 42;
   |      ^^^

error: aborting due to previous error
Don't create drop scopes after item statements These scopes would not exist in MIR and can cause ICEs with invalid uses of let expressions. 2023-09-06 12:52:34 +00:00			error: expected expression, found `let` statement
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions. 2023-09-08 10:14:36 +00:00			`--> $DIR/avoid-invalid-mir.rs:5:6`
Don't create drop scopes after item statements These scopes would not exist in MIR and can cause ICEs with invalid uses of let expressions. 2023-09-06 12:52:34 +00:00			`\|`
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions. 2023-09-08 10:14:36 +00:00			`LL \| !let y = 42;`
			`\| ^^^`
Don't create drop scopes after item statements These scopes would not exist in MIR and can cause ICEs with invalid uses of let expressions. 2023-09-06 12:52:34 +00:00
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions. 2023-09-08 10:14:36 +00:00			`error: aborting due to previous error`
Don't create drop scopes after item statements These scopes would not exist in MIR and can cause ICEs with invalid uses of let expressions. 2023-09-06 12:52:34 +00:00