rust/src/test/compile-fail/liveness-missing-ret2.rs

// error-pattern: not all control paths return a value

fn f() -> int {
    // Make sure typestate doesn't interpreturn this alt expression
    // as the function result
    alt check true { true { } };
}

fn main() { }
Be more strict about what constitutes a block expression Blocks (or statements involving blocks) that end in a semicolon are no longer considered the block-expression of their outer block. This used to be an expression block, but now is a statement block: { if foo { ret 1; } else { ret 10; } } This helps clear up some ambiguities in our grammar. 2011-09-13 08:50:03 -05:00			`// error-pattern: not all control paths return a value`
rustc: Teach rustc to use block results as fn return values. Closes #372 2011-05-31 14:24:18 -05:00
			`fn f() -> int {`
Convert ret to return 2012-08-01 19:30:05 -05:00			`// Make sure typestate doesn't interpreturn this alt expression`
Reformat for new syntax 2011-07-27 07:19:39 -05:00			`// as the function result`
Rewrite exhaustiveness checker Issue #352 Closes #1720 The old checker would happily accept things like 'alt x { @some(a) { a } }'. It now properly descends into patterns, checks exhaustiveness of booleans, and complains when number/string patterns aren't exhaustive. 2012-02-15 02:40:42 -06:00			`alt check true { true { } };`
rustc: Teach rustc to use block results as fn return values. Closes #372 2011-05-31 14:24:18 -05:00			`}`
Reformat for new syntax 2011-07-27 07:19:39 -05:00
Reformat This changes the indexing syntax from .() to [], the vector syntax from ~[] to [] and the extension syntax from #fmt() to #fmt[] 2011-08-19 17:16:48 -05:00			`fn main() { }`