rust/src/test/ui/unwind-unique.rs

// run-pass
// ignore-emscripten no threads support

#![feature(box_syntax)]

use std::thread;

fn f() {
    let _a: Box<_> = box 0;
    panic!();
}

pub fn main() {
    let t = thread::spawn(f);
    drop(t.join());
}
tests: Add missing run-pass annotations 2019-07-27 00:54:25 +03:00			`// run-pass`
Ignore tests that use threads on emscripten 2016-02-11 12:34:41 +01:00			`// ignore-emscripten no threads support`
rustdoc: Replace no-pretty-expanded with pretty-expanded 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. 2015-03-22 13:13:15 -07:00
fallout: run-pass tests that use box. (many could be ported to `Box::new` instead in the future.) 2015-01-08 02:25:56 +01:00			`#![feature(box_syntax)]`

Fallout from stabilization 2015-02-17 15:10:25 -08:00			`use std::thread;`
librustc: Stop reexporting the standard modules from prelude. 2013-05-24 19:35:29 -07:00
port over the tests to use the new API 2012-01-04 21:14:53 -08:00			`fn f() {`
Add `: Box<_>` or `::Box<_>` type annotations to various places. This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to accommodate overloaded-`box`. ---- Note that this is not all of the changes necessary to accommodate Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry type ascription. (For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.) ---- There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done in coerce-match-calls.rs. ---- Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181. 2015-02-17 21:41:32 +01:00			`let _a: Box<_> = box 0;`
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . \| xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2014-10-09 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!();`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 14:58:06 -07:00			`}`

check-fast fallout from removing export, r=burningtree 2013-02-01 19:43:17 -08:00			`pub fn main() {`
test: Make two tests less flaky on windows If these tests exit while a thread is panicking it often leads to situations like #22628. 2015-02-23 09:53:03 -08:00			`let t = thread::spawn(f);`
			`drop(t.join());`
Add task::spawn_unlinked and start migrating away from task::unsupervise 2012-07-23 15:53:18 -04:00			`}`