about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/test/ui/traits
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2019-10-14Rollup merge of #65292 - JohnTitor:add-backticks, r=varkor,CentrilMazdak Farrokhzad-6/+6
Print lifetimes with backticks Fixes #65287 r? @varkor
2019-10-11Print lifetimes with backticksYuki Okushi-6/+6
2019-10-10Update ui testsGuillaume Gomez-1/+2
2019-10-07update ui testsGuillaume Gomez-0/+1
2019-09-30Fixed grammar in one diagnostic and blessed tests.Alexander Regueiro-4/+4
2019-09-26Auto merge of #62661 - arielb1:never-reserve, r=nikomatsakisbors-0/+145
reserve `impl<T> From<!> for T` this is necessary for never-type stabilization. cc #57012 #35121 I think we wanted a crater run for this @nikomatsakis? r? @nikomatsakis
2019-09-25address rebase damageAriel Ben-Yehuda-2/+2
2019-09-24Remove blanket silencing of "type annotation needed" errorsEsteban Küber-2/+2
Remove blanket check for existence of other errors before emitting "type annotation needed" errors, and add some eager checks to avoid adding obligations when they refer to types that reference `[type error]` in order to reduce unneded errors.
2019-09-24nit: update text to avoid "lattice specialization" termNiko Matsakis-5/+8
2019-09-24improve commentAriel Ben-Yehuda-4/+4
2019-09-24add test for lattice specializationAriel Ben-Yehuda-0/+56
2019-09-24add error message for caseAriel Ben-Yehuda-3/+5
2019-09-24improve and add testsAriel Ben-Yehuda-0/+84
2019-09-22ignore-x86 instead of ignore-muslEsteban Küber-1/+1
2019-09-22Point at type param when it's cause of unfulfilled obligationEsteban Küber-8/+8
2019-09-22ignore musl target in tests to avoid issues with output differencesEsteban Küber-7/+9
2019-09-22On obligation errors point at the unfulfilled binding when possibleEsteban Küber-15/+31
2019-09-19When possible point at argument causing item obligation failureEsteban Küber-14/+14
2019-09-09Auto merge of #64237 - estebank:tweak-method-not-found, r=Centrilbors-3/+3
Give method not found a primary span label
2019-09-08Give method not found a primary span labelEsteban Küber-3/+3
2019-09-08Update test stderr with results of enabling unused lintsMark Rousskov-1/+1
2019-09-05Rollup merge of #64110 - estebank:receiver-type, r=CentrilMazdak Farrokhzad-12/+25
Refer to "`self` type" instead of "receiver type" Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42603.
2019-09-03Rollup merge of #64056 - estebank:arbitrary-self-types, r=CentrilMazdak Farrokhzad-0/+7
Account for arbitrary self types in E0599 Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62373
2019-09-02account for DUMMY_SP and correct wordingEsteban Küber-2/+2
2019-09-02On object safety violation, point at source when possibleEsteban Küber-12/+25
2019-09-02Refer to "`self` type" instead of "receiver type"Esteban Küber-2/+2
2019-09-01Account for arbitrary self types in E0599Esteban Küber-0/+7
2019-08-31Use span label instead of note for cause in E0631Esteban Küber-163/+89
2019-08-19Cherry-pick src/test changes with Centril's changessd234678-1/+0
2019-08-16Remove meaningless comments in src/testsd234678-6/+0
2019-08-02Address review commentsvarkor-1/+1
2019-08-02Fix fallout after rebasevarkor-1/+1
2019-07-27tests: Move run-pass tests with naming conflicts to uiVadim Petrochenkov-0/+42
2019-07-27tests: Move run-pass tests without naming conflicts to uiVadim Petrochenkov-0/+3234
2019-07-24Adjust tests for method disambiguation helpIlija Tovilo-0/+2
2019-07-17normalize use of backticks in compiler messages for librustc/lintSamy Kacimi-1/+1
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60532
2019-07-03Migrate compile-pass annotations to build-passYuki Okushi-7/+7
2019-06-22Rollup merge of #61681 - asfreitas:addSendTrait, r=estebankMazdak Farrokhzad-14/+14
Changed the error message to more clearly explain what is allowed This is in regard to #61634. I changed the language to make it more clear what is allowed.
2019-06-22adding in these files that didn't get added in previous commitAndrew-7/+7
2019-06-21changed expected output in tests so it now passes with changed outputAndrew-7/+7
2019-06-14Add explanation for E0592Yuki Okushi-0/+1
2019-06-09Add test for ICEYuki Okushi-0/+22
2019-05-31fix tidyEsteban Küber-3/+1
2019-05-30Remove unecessary `-Z continue-parse-after-error` from testsEsteban Küber-1/+1
2019-05-29Update ui test suite to use dynmemoryruins-62/+72
2019-05-20Reinstated shallow disallowing of maybe bounds in trait objects.Alexander Regueiro-2/+46
2019-05-20Addressed more points raised in review.Alexander Regueiro-104/+361
2019-05-20Addressed points raised in review.Alexander Regueiro-41/+87
2019-05-20Update tests.Alexander Regueiro-15/+1347
2019-05-14Rollup merge of #60444 - nikomatsakis:issue-60010-cycle-error-investigation, ↵Mazdak Farrokhzad-0/+91
r=pnkfelix forego caching for all participants in cycles, apart from root node This is a targeted fix for #60010, which uncovered a pretty bad failure of our caching strategy in the face of coinductive cycles. The problem is explained in the comment in the PR on the new field, `in_cycle`, but I'll reproduce it here: > Starts out as false -- if, during evaluation, we encounter a > cycle, then we will set this flag to true for all participants > in the cycle (apart from the "head" node). These participants > will then forego caching their results. This is not the most > efficient solution, but it addresses #60010. The problem we > are trying to prevent: > > - If you have `A: AutoTrait` requires `B: AutoTrait` and `C: NonAutoTrait` > - `B: AutoTrait` requires `A: AutoTrait` (coinductive cycle, ok) > - `C: NonAutoTrait` requires `A: AutoTrait` (non-coinductive cycle, not ok) > > you don't want to cache that `B: AutoTrait` or `A: AutoTrait` > is `EvaluatedToOk`; this is because they were only considered > ok on the premise that if `A: AutoTrait` held, but we indeed > encountered a problem (later on) with `A: AutoTrait. So we > currently set a flag on the stack node for `B: AutoTrait` (as > well as the second instance of `A: AutoTrait`) to supress > caching. > > This is a simple, targeted fix. The correct fix requires > deeper changes, but would permit more caching: we could > basically defer caching until we have fully evaluated the > tree, and then cache the entire tree at once. I'm not sure what the impact of this fix will be in terms of existing crates or performance: we were accepting incorrect code before, so there will perhaps be some regressions, and we are now caching less. As the comment above notes, we could do a lot better than this fix, but that would involve more invasive rewrites. I thought it best to start with something simple. r? @pnkfelix -- but let's do crater/perf run cc @arielb1
generated by cgit-pink 1.4.1-3-g733a5 (git 2.37.1) at 2026-04-25 21:35:30 +0000