bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Activity

Prefer "0..MAX not covered" to "_ not covered"

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Nadrieril 2024-02-07 04:00:02 +01:00
parent 970f46c60d
commit 9dca6be7b8
7 changed files with 32 additions and 34 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
compiler/rustc_pattern_analysis/src/usefulness.rs
View file

@ -1520,11 +1520,9 @@ fn compute_exhaustiveness_and_usefulness<'a, 'p, Cx: TypeCx>(
split_ctors.push(Constructor::Missing);
}
// Decide what constructors to report.
let is_integers = matches!(ctors_for_ty, ConstructorSet::Integers { .. });
let always_report_all = place.is_scrutinee && !is_integers;
// Whether we should report "Enum::A and Enum::C are missing" or "_ is missing".
let report_individual_missing_ctors = always_report_all || !all_missing;
// Whether we should report "Enum::A and Enum::C are missing" or "_ is missing". At the top
// level we prefer to list all constructors.
let report_individual_missing_ctors = place.is_scrutinee || !all_missing;
// Which constructors are considered missing. We ensure that `!missing_ctors.is_empty() =>
// split_ctors.contains(Missing)`. The converse usually holds except when
// `!place_validity.is_known_valid()`.