rust/src/test/ui/fail-no-dead-code.rs

#![deny(dead_code)]
#![allow(unreachable_code)]

fn foo() { //~ ERROR function is never used

    // none of these should have any dead_code exposed to the user
    panic!();

    panic!("foo");

    panic!("bar {}", "baz")
}


fn main() {}
core/std: squash dead_code warnings from fail! invocations. The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the warnings can be squashed. Fixes #16192. 2014-08-02 22:41:40 +10:00			`#![deny(dead_code)]`
			`#![allow(unreachable_code)]`

Use more descriptive names in dead code messages 2014-09-20 14:08:10 +02:00			`fn foo() { //~ ERROR function is never used`
core/std: squash dead_code warnings from fail! invocations. The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the warnings can be squashed. Fixes #16192. 2014-08-02 22:41:40 +10:00
			`// none of these should have any dead_code exposed to the user`
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 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!();`
core/std: squash dead_code warnings from fail! invocations. The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the warnings can be squashed. Fixes #16192. 2014-08-02 22:41:40 +10:00
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 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!("foo");`
core/std: squash dead_code warnings from fail! invocations. The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the warnings can be squashed. Fixes #16192. 2014-08-02 22:41:40 +10:00
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 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!("bar {}", "baz")`
core/std: squash dead_code warnings from fail! invocations. The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the warnings can be squashed. Fixes #16192. 2014-08-02 22:41:40 +10:00			`}`


			`fn main() {}`