2018-08-30 07:18:55 -05:00
|
|
|
// run-pass
|
2018-09-25 16:51:35 -05:00
|
|
|
#![allow(dead_code)]
|
|
|
|
#![allow(unused_variables)]
|
2023-04-21 19:08:38 -05:00
|
|
|
// Test that when we match a trait reference like `Foo<A>: Foo<?0t>`,
|
|
|
|
// we unify with `?0t` with `A`. In this code, if we failed to do
|
2015-07-24 09:23:35 -05:00
|
|
|
// that, then you get an unconstrained type-variable in `call`.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Also serves as a regression test for issue #26952, though the test
|
|
|
|
// was derived from another reported regression with the same cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
use std::marker::PhantomData;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trait Trait<A> { fn foo(&self); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct Type<A> { a: PhantomData<A> }
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-28 13:47:21 -05:00
|
|
|
fn as_trait<A>(t: &Type<A>) -> &dyn Trait<A> { loop { } }
|
2015-07-24 09:23:35 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn want<A,T:Trait<A>+?Sized>(t: &T) { }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn call<A>(p: Type<A>) {
|
|
|
|
let q = as_trait(&p);
|
|
|
|
want(q); // parameter A to `want` *would* be unconstrained
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn main() { }
|