3554036280
An `assume` would definitely not be worth it, but since the flag is almost free we might as well tell LLVM this, especially on `_unchecked` calls where there's no obvious way for it to deduce it. (Today neither safe nor unsafe indexing gets it: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/G1jYT548s>)
19 lines
679 B
Plaintext
19 lines
679 B
Plaintext
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
|
|
--> $SRC_DIR/core/src/slice/index.rs:LL:COL
|
|
|
|
|
= note: overflow executing `unchecked_sub`
|
|
|
|
|
note: inside `<std::ops::Range<usize> as SliceIndex<[()]>>::get_unchecked`
|
|
--> $SRC_DIR/core/src/slice/index.rs:LL:COL
|
|
note: inside `core::slice::<impl [()]>::get_unchecked::<std::ops::Range<usize>>`
|
|
--> $SRC_DIR/core/src/slice/mod.rs:LL:COL
|
|
note: inside `B`
|
|
--> $DIR/ub-slice-get-unchecked.rs:7:27
|
|
|
|
|
LL | const B: &[()] = unsafe { A.get_unchecked(3..1) };
|
|
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
error: aborting due to previous error
|
|
|
|
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
|