mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
4c02b4cf4c
rust/tests/ui/macros/syntax-extension-cfg.rs

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

25 lines
707 B
Rust
Raw Normal View History

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 07:18:55 -05:00
// run-pass
Convert cfg syntax to new system This removes the ability to use `foo(bar)` style cfgs. Switch them to `foo_bar` or `foo="bar"` instead. [breaking-change]
2014-09-24 22:22:57 -05:00
// compile-flags: --cfg foo --cfg qux="foo"
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
rustdoc: Replace no-pretty-expanded with pretty-expanded Now that features must be declared expanded source often does not compile. This adds 'pretty-expanded' to a bunch of test cases that still work.
2015-03-22 15:13:15 -05:00
test: Make all the run-pass tests use `pub fn main`
2014-01-03 17:30:54 -06:00
pub fn main() {
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
// check
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change]
2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00
if ! cfg!(foo) { panic!() }
if cfg!(not(foo)) { panic!() }
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change]
2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00
if ! cfg!(qux="foo") { panic!() }
if cfg!(not(qux="foo")) { panic!() }
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change]
2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00
if ! cfg!(all(foo, qux="foo")) { panic!() }
if cfg!(not(all(foo, qux="foo"))) { panic!() }
if cfg!(all(not(all(foo, qux="foo")))) { panic!() }
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change]
2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00
if cfg!(not_a_cfg) { panic!() }
if cfg!(all(not_a_cfg, foo, qux="foo")) { panic!() }
if cfg!(all(not_a_cfg, foo, qux="foo")) { panic!() }
if ! cfg!(any(not_a_cfg, foo)) { panic!() }
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change]
2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00
if ! cfg!(not(not_a_cfg)) { panic!() }
if ! cfg!(all(not(not_a_cfg), foo, qux="foo")) { panic!() }
syntax: implement cfg!() which evaluates to true/false where #[cfg] would keep/remove. Example: if cfg!(test) { calculation_to_run_only_when_testing(); }
2013-08-01 08:03:03 -05:00
}
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink