//@ run-pass //@ needs-unwind #![allow(overflowing_literals)] //@ ignore-emscripten no threads support // Test that using the `vec!` macro nested within itself works when // the contents implement Drop and we hit a panic in the middle of // construction. use std::thread; use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicUsize, Ordering}; static LOG: AtomicUsize = AtomicUsize::new(0); struct D(u8); impl Drop for D { fn drop(&mut self) { println!("Dropping {}", self.0); let old = LOG.load(Ordering::SeqCst); let _ = LOG.compare_exchange( old, old << 4 | self.0 as usize, Ordering::SeqCst, Ordering::SeqCst, ); } } fn main() { fn die() -> D { panic!("Oh no"); } let g = thread::spawn(|| { let _nested = vec![vec![D( 1), D( 2), D( 3), D( 4)], vec![D( 5), D( 6), D( 7), D( 8)], vec![D( 9), D(10), die(), D(12)], vec![D(13), D(14), D(15), D(16)]]; }); assert!(g.join().is_err()); // When the panic occurs, we will be in the midst of constructing the // second inner vector. Therefore, we drop the elements of the // partially filled vector first, before we get around to dropping // the elements of the filled vector. // Issue 23222: The order in which the elements actually get // dropped is a little funky: as noted above, we'll drop the 9+10 // first, but due to #23222, they get dropped in reverse // order. Likewise, again due to #23222, we will drop the second // filled vec before the first filled vec. // // If Issue 23222 is "fixed", then presumably the corrected // expected order of events will be 0x__9_A__1_2_3_4__5_6_7_8; // that is, we would still drop 9+10 first, since they belong to // the more deeply nested expression when the panic occurs. let expect = 0x__A_9__5_6_7_8__1_2_3_4; let actual = LOG.load(Ordering::SeqCst); assert!(actual == expect, "expect: 0x{:x} actual: 0x{:x}", expect, actual); }