about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/test/run-pass/repeat-expr-in-static.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2019-07-27tests: Move run-pass tests without naming conflicts to uiVadim Petrochenkov-8/+0
2019-07-27tests: Add missing run-pass annotationsVadim Petrochenkov-0/+2
2018-12-25Remove licensesMark Rousskov-11/+0
2015-06-13Use `assert_eq!` instead of `assert!` in testspetrochenkov-1/+1
2015-04-08Remove pretty-expanded from failing testsAlex Crichton-1/+0
This commit removes pretty-expanded from all tests that wind up calling panic! one way or another now that its internals are unstable.
2015-03-26Mass rename uint/int to usize/isizeAlex Crichton-2/+2
Now that support has been removed, all lingering use cases are renamed.
2015-03-23rustdoc: Replace no-pretty-expanded with pretty-expandedBrian Anderson-0/+2
Now that features must be declared expanded source often does not compile. This adds 'pretty-expanded' to a bunch of test cases that still work.
2014-12-20Allow use of `[_ ; n]` syntax for fixed length and repeating arrays.Nick Cameron-2/+2
This does NOT break any existing programs because the `[_, ..n]` syntax is also supported.
2014-02-28std: Change assert_eq!() to use {} instead of {:?}Alex Crichton-1/+1
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information, this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of {:?}. In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered: * It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this because we can define Show for [T]. * A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)] * Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)` * `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths. I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks awful (it's a byte array). Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime significant for smaller binaries.
2013-08-13Add test for repeat expr in statics.Luqman Aden-0/+16