Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Alex Crichton
0791f9f406 test: Fix fallout in tests 2015-04-21 11:37:43 -07:00
Niko Matsakis
872ce47955 Fallout: tests. As tests frequently elide things, lots of changes
here.  Some of this may have been poorly rebased, though I tried to be
careful and preserve the spirit of the test.
2015-02-18 10:25:28 -05:00
Huon Wilson
0c70ce1424 Update compile fail tests to use isize. 2015-01-08 11:02:24 -05:00
Nick Cameron
e0684e8769 Fallout 2015-01-06 14:20:48 +13:00
Nick Cameron
2e86929a4a Allow use of [_ ; n] syntax for fixed length and repeating arrays.
This does NOT break any existing programs because the `[_, ..n]` syntax is also supported.
2014-12-20 15:23:29 +13:00
Niko Matsakis
b88f86782e Update error messages in compile-fail tests 2014-09-15 14:58:49 -04:00
Nick Cameron
52ef46251e Rebasing changes 2014-08-26 16:07:32 +12:00
Nick Cameron
3e626375d8 DST coercions and DST structs
[breaking-change]

1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code.

2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible.

3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.
2014-08-26 12:38:51 +12:00