-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Incorrect matching on tuples with value ranges #12582
Comments
This was referenced Mar 22, 2014
edwardw
added a commit
to edwardw/rust
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2014
By carefully distinguishing falling back to the default arm from moving on to the next pattern, this patch adjusts the codegen logic for range and guarded arms of pattern matching expression. It is a more appropriate way of fixing rust-lang#12582 and rust-lang#13027 without causing regressions such as rust-lang#13867. Closes rust-lang#13867
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 6, 2014
By carefully distinguishing falling back to the default arm from moving on to the next pattern, this patch adjusts the codegen logic for range and guarded arms of pattern matching expression. It is a more appropriate way of fixing #12582 and #13027 without causing regressions such as #13867. Closes #13867
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2024
`large_stack_frames`: print total size and largest component. Instead of just saying “this function's stack frame is big”, report: * the (presumed) size of the frame * the size and type of the largest local contributing to that size * the configurable limit that was exceeded (once) Known issues: * The lint may report an over-estimate because codegen may be able to overlap some of these locals. However, that already affected whether the lint fired at all; I believe this change is still an improvement because it gives the user much more actionable information about _why_ the lint fired. * Please tell me a better way to determine whether a local has a variable name. changelog: [`large_stack_frames`]: print total size and largest component.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
If part of a tuple is already "mentioned" in a match (but the match misses because of the rest of the tuple), it then won't match on a later range either, regardless of whether it should.
Best demonstrated by example:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: