Add let else drop order tests #99291

est31 · 2022-07-15T17:25:21Z

Add a systematic matrix based test that checks temporary drop order in various settings, let-else-drop-order.rs, as requested here.

The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for a number of cases.

The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block.

cc #87335 tracking issue for let else

rust-highfive · 2022-07-15T17:25:24Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs

Mark-Simulacrum · 2022-07-23T20:30:53Z

r? @pnkfelix or @joshtriplett perhaps? I would need to re-investigate the (long) discussion threads to page back in what drop order we want to make sure these tests are validating intended behavior.

est31 · 2022-07-24T00:41:05Z

@Mark-Simulacrum note that the temporary drop order tests added by this PR will soon change in their output when #99518 merges. So the output this PR currently enforces is not what we want. I opened this PR to get it tracked in the test suite at all. Depending on which PR gets merged first, either I have to change the output in this PR, or #99518 has to upon rebase. That PR adds its own small drop order test, but the one my PR adds is more comprehensive and is likely what @pnkfelix wanted when they made their comment I've linked above.

Also, as an update, given that #99518 was opened and it adds tests for #93951, I've removed the regression test from this PR.

camsteffen · 2022-07-28T21:48:47Z

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order-nested.run.stdout

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+v is 0 (match), construct is let else


All this printing seems excessive. I think it's better to decide what behavior we want to assert, and find a way to write a test that panics if that behavior doesn't happen.

That test checks a bunch of constructs and what their drop order is. The drop order actually differs for let else depending on what the input is, and according to #87335 (comment) , it's in fact intentional. Obviously we want to test the drop order for various ways to do let else especially as it's been asked for (see PR description).

For the other constructs, I haven't found a single test in the test suite ensuring their temporary drop order. I think having one test that checks it for all the conditional constructs is helpful, e.g. when the implementation is changed and drop order changes for say if, then it would be useful to know that, even if such a change is intentional.

I'm not sure that a panic based design is going to be better than a stdout based design. tests asserting stdout output are rare in the testsuite but this seems like the ideal candidate to me: you need to have some kind of global state and in #99518, atomics were used, and earlier versions used thread locals, but their management added lots of noise to the test file.

The drop order actually differs for let else depending on what the input is, and according to #87335 (comment) , it's in fact intentional.

I don't think that is a good way to characterize the behavior. I would say, for let <pat> = <init> else { .. }, the temporaries in <init> are always dropped immediately after <init> executes.

For the other constructs,

If we really need tests for other constructs, then it shouldn't be in the let-else folder.

I'm not sure that a panic based design is going to be better than a stdout based design.

I think stdout-based tests are rare because it's a more indirect, less self-contained approach. Panics are easier to reason about. You can use Rc instead of atomics or thread locals, it is very minimal.

Anyways it's up to the reviewer. Just adding my two cents.

I would say, for let = else { .. }, the temporaries in are always dropped immediately after executes.

You can't drop the temporaries in the instance of let &Droppy(d) = &Droppy(foo()), because d is not moved out of Droppy but still lives "inside" it, and may still be used in the "if" block.

If we really need tests for other constructs, then it shouldn't be in the let-else folder.

Feel free to suggest a different folder!

If Droppy is part of the pattern then I don't think it is a temporary since the value is moved to the pattern. I don't think the d is relevant. It's a Copy type.

If Droppy is part of the pattern then I don't think it is a temporary since the value is moved to the pattern. I don't think the d is relevant. It's a Copy type.

It is both part of the pattern and the temporary construction. &Droppy(foo()) creates a temporary on the stack via the expression Droppy(foo()). It then builds a reference to it. The reference means that the insides of the temporary can't be moved, which is what makes it live longer. This reference is then used for the pattern matching, which takes a pointer to the contained d and makes it accessible as a new binding. In theory as d is copy it could just be copied over to a new location and a new reference built to it, but this isn't neccessarily faster even because d might be a really big type (despite being copy). Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor or against this optimization, all I'm saying is that in this instance, the temporary isn't immediately dropped, and if it were, accessing the reference to d would be a use after free issue, so pretty serious stuff. In theory the MIR borrow checker and if that one doesn't, MIRI, should catch this but it's better to be safe and have a test for the drop order.

Anyways, if doesn't need to care about access inside the block, so it always just drops the temporary early, even if it's a & one. And if let is in the same situation as let else but it always post-drops probably because this distinction wasn't done in the past. Actually testing for this makes total sense IMO.

@camsteffen I hope this settles your concerns that my test is excessive 😂 : #98672 (comment)

est31 · 2022-08-12T08:11:15Z

I've moved the regression tests from this PR to #100443 as the drop order tests seem to contain more discussion than expected.

…=Mark-Simulacrum Add two let else regression tests Adds a regression test for rust-lang#94176, as it was fixed by rust-lang#98574 but doesn't have a regression test. The PR also incorporates a commit from rust-lang#94012 which added a test for an issue discovered in that PR. Originally they have been part of rust-lang#99291, but I've moved them out in the hopes of getting them merged more quickly, as that PR is already open since a month, and so that rust-lang#99291 can focus on the drop order part of things. Closes rust-lang#94176 Closes rust-lang#96961 -- dupe of rust-lang#94176

pnkfelix · 2022-08-23T21:44:19Z

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.run.stdout

+  let else:
+    I dropped
+    if body
+v is 1


Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently none of these cases "differ" between the then case and then else case, right? In the sense that if you put these two halves side-by-side, the "I dropped" would all be aligned.

I'm wondering whether there's any value in revising the presentation to make that immediate, by actually have the textual output be two columns... (Its telling that in the current presentation, the answer to my question isn't immediately obvious, and I suspect if a bug arose that caused that property to be violated, it would be less likely to be caught in review given the current presentation of this test output...)

currently none of these cases "differ" between the then case and then else case, right?

There were differences back when I filed my PR. I've just checked out a nightly from july 15 when I filed it, and got this:

let else: else body I dropped

But now you are correct, it's all the same in the match and mismatch case.

As for changes in the layout, I really like how this (now outdated) table turned out: #87335 (comment) . side by side view is really nice indeed :)

est31 · 2022-09-05T02:04:13Z

I've reworked the PR, removed the comparisons with any construct other than let for which ensuring consistency with is an explicit design goal. The PR also only adds one test file now. I mark it as ready for review. r? @pnkfelix

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs

…op order The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the same, and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for the given list of cases. The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block. We made the test matrix based so it can check all the possible combinations and find out possible edge cases.

est31 · 2022-09-05T11:07:04Z

I've ran rustfmt on the file (per default rustfmt doesnt run on test files) and edited the comment at the top.

joshtriplett · 2022-09-05T12:55:48Z

@bors r+ rollup

bors · 2022-09-05T12:55:50Z

📌 Commit 2d8460e has been approved by joshtriplett

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Add let else drop order tests Add a systematic matrix based test that checks temporary drop order in various settings, `let-else-drop-order.rs`, as requested [here](rust-lang#93628 (comment)). The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for a number of cases. The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block. cc rust-lang#87335 tracking issue for `let else`

Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#99291 (Add let else drop order tests) - rust-lang#101402 (Add a Machine hook for inline assembly) - rust-lang#101404 (Fix cleanup for uninitialized stdout) - rust-lang#101418 (Revert "Mention rust-analyzer maintainers when `proc_macro` bridge is changed") - rust-lang#101425 (Point at type parameter in plain path expr) - rust-lang#101426 (Don't duplicate file descriptors into stdio fds) - rust-lang#101447 (Remove generics_def_id_map from the resolver.) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

…plett Stabilize `let else` :tada: **Stabilizes the `let else` feature, added by [RFC 3137](rust-lang/rfcs#3137 🎉 Reference PR: rust-lang/reference#1156 closes rust-lang#87335 (`let else` tracking issue) FCP: rust-lang#93628 (comment) ---------- ## Stabilization report ### Summary The feature allows refutable patterns in `let` statements if the expression is followed by a diverging `else`: ```Rust fn get_count_item(s: &str) -> (u64, &str) { let mut it = s.split(' '); let (Some(count_str), Some(item)) = (it.next(), it.next()) else { panic!("Can't segment count item pair: '{s}'"); }; let Ok(count) = u64::from_str(count_str) else { panic!("Can't parse integer: '{count_str}'"); }; (count, item) } assert_eq!(get_count_item("3 chairs"), (3, "chairs")); ``` ### Differences from the RFC / Desugaring Outside of desugaring I'm not aware of any differences between the implementation and the RFC. The chosen desugaring has been changed from the RFC's [original](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3137-let-else.html#reference-level-explanations). You can read a detailed discussion of the implementation history of it in `@cormacrelf` 's [summary](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) in this thread, as well as the [followup](rust-lang#93628 (comment)). Since that followup, further changes have happened to the desugaring, in rust-lang#98574, rust-lang#99518, rust-lang#99954. The later changes were mostly about the drop order: On match, temporaries drop in the same order as they would for a `let` declaration. On mismatch, temporaries drop before the `else` block. ### Test cases In chronological order as they were merged. Added by df9a2e0 (rust-lang#87688): * [`ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs) to ensure the unreachable pattern lint visits patterns inside `let else`. Added by 5b95df4 (rust-lang#87688): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs) to ensure that no lazy boolean expressions (using `&&` or `||`) are allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs) to ensure that no `}` directly preceding the `else` is allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs) to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for the `else` block. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs) to ensure that the `irrefutable_let_patterns` lint fires. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs) to ensure the presence of semicolons at the end of the `let` statement. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs) to ensure the `else` block diverges. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs) to ensure the feature works in some simple test case settings. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs) to ensure the bindings created by the outer `let` expression are not available in the `else` block of it. Added by bf7c32a (rust-lang#89965): * [`ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs) as a regression test for the ICE-on-error bug rust-lang#89960 . Later in 102b912 this got removed in favour of more comprehensive tests. Added by 8565419 (rust-lang#89974): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs) to test for the improved error message that points out that `let else if` is not possible. Added by 9b45713: * [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#89807, to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for bindings created by the `let else` pattern. Added by 61bcd8d (rust-lang#89841): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs) to ensure that a copy is performed out of non-copy wrapper types. This mirrors `if let` behaviour. The test case bases on rustc internal changes originally meant for rust-lang#89933 but then removed from the PR due to the error prior to the improvements of rust-lang#89841. * [`ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs) to ensure that while there is a move of the binding in the successful case, the `else` case can still access the non-matching value. This mirrors `if let` behaviour. Added by 102b912 (rust-lang#89841): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs) to check `ref` and `ref mut` keywords in the pattern work correctly and error when needed. Added by 2715c5f (rust-lang#89841): * Match ergonomic tests adapted from the `rfc2005` test suite. Added by fec8a50 (rust-lang#89841): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs) to check deref coercions. #### Added since this stabilization report was originally written (2022-02-09) Added by 76ea566 (rust-lang#94211): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.63.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs) to give a nice error message if an user tries to do an assignment with a (possibly refutable) pattern and an `else` block, like asked for in rust-lang#93995. Added by e7730dc (rust-lang#94208): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs) to test whether `#[allow(unused_variables)]` works in the expr, as well as its non presence, as well as putting it on the entire `let else` *affects* the expr, too. This was adding a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report. * Expansion of `ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs` and `ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs` to ensure that non-presence of `#[allow(unused)]` does issue the unused lint. This was adding a missing test case as pointed out by the stabilization report. Added by 5bd7106 (rust-lang#94208): * [`ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs), a regression test for rust-lang#92069, which got fixed without addition of a regression test. This resolves a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report. Added by 5374688 (rust-lang#98574): * [`src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs) to test the interaction of async/await with `let else` Added by 6c529de (rust-lang#98574): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a (partial) regression test for rust-lang#98672 Added by 9b56640 (rust-lang#99518): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#93951 * Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#98672 (especially regarding `else` drop order) Added by baf9a7c (rust-lang#99518): * Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#93951, similar to `let-else-temp-borrowck.rs` Added by 60be2de (rust-lang#99518): * Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a program that can now be compiled thanks to borrow checker implications of rust-lang#99518 Added by 47a7a91 (rust-lang#100132): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs), as a regression test for rust-lang#100103, to ensure that there is no ICE when doing `Err(...)?` inside else blocks. Added by e3c5bd6 (rust-lang#100443): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs), to verify that there is no unreachable code error with the current desugaring. Added by 9818526 (rust-lang#100443): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs), to make sure that a correct span is emitted for a missing trailing expression error. Regression test for rust-lang#94176. Added by e182d12 (rust-lang#100434): * [src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs), as a regression test to ensure pretty printing works for `let else` (this bug surfaced in many different ways) Added by e262856 (rust-lang#99954): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) extended to contain & borrows as well, as this was identified as an earlier issue with the desugaring: rust-lang#98672 (comment) Added by 2d8460e (rust-lang#99291): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs) a matrix based test for various drop order behaviour of `let else`. Especially, it verifies equality of `let` and `let else` drop orders, [resolving](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) a [stabilization blocker](rust-lang#93628 (comment)). Added by 1b87ce0 (rust-lang#101410): * Edit to `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to add the `-Zvalidate-mir` flag, as a regression test for rust-lang#99228 Added by af591eb (rust-lang#101410): * [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs) as a regression test for the ICE rust-lang#99975. Added by this PR: * `ui/let-else/let-else.rs`, a simple run-pass check, similar to `ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`. ### Things not currently tested * ~~The `#[allow(...)]` tests check whether allow works, but they don't check whether the non-presence of allow causes a lint to fire.~~ → *test added by e7730dc* * ~~There is no `#[allow(...)]` test for the expression, as there are tests for the pattern and the else block.~~ → *test added by e7730dc* * ~~`let-else-brace-before-else.rs` forbids the `let ... = {} else {}` pattern and there is a rustfix to obtain `let ... = ({}) else {}`. I'm not sure whether the `.fixed` files are checked by the tooling that they compile. But if there is no such check, it would be neat to make sure that `let ... = ({}) else {}` compiles.~~ → *test added by e7730dc* * ~~rust-lang#92069 got closed as fixed, but no regression test was added. Not sure it's worth to add one.~~ → *test added by 5bd7106* * ~~consistency between `let else` and `if let` regarding lifetimes and drop order: rust-lang#93628 (comment) → *test added by 2d8460e* Edit: they are all tested now. ### Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments [RFC 2909](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2909-destructuring-assignment.html) specifies destructuring assignment, allowing statements like `FooBar { a, b, c } = foo();`. As it was stabilized, destructuring assignment only allows *irrefutable* patterns, which before the advent of `let else` were the only patterns that `let` supported. So the combination of `let else` and destructuring assignments gives reason to think about extensions of the destructuring assignments feature that allow refutable patterns, discussed in rust-lang#93995. A naive mapping of `let else` to destructuring assignments in the form of `Some(v) = foo() else { ... };` might not be the ideal way. `let else` needs a diverging `else` clause as it introduces new bindings, while assignments have a default behaviour to fall back to if the pattern does not match, in the form of not performing the assignment. Thus, there is no good case to require divergence, or even an `else` clause at all, beyond the need for having *some* introducer syntax so that it is clear to readers that the assignment is not a given (enums and structs look similar). There are better candidates for introducer syntax however than an empty `else {}` clause, like `maybe` which could be added as a keyword on an edition boundary: ```Rust let mut v = 0; maybe Some(v) = foo(&v); maybe Some(v) = foo(&v) else { bar() }; ``` Further design discussion is left to an RFC, or the linked issue.

rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jul 15, 2022

rust-highfive assigned Mark-Simulacrum Jul 15, 2022

rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 15, 2022

est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2022

Change desugaring of let-else to ensure temporary is dropped earlier #94012

Closed

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch 3 times, most recently from a51a2a8 to b7635c9 Compare July 15, 2022 19:56

est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2022

Tracking Issue for RFC 3137: let-else statements #87335

Closed

7 tasks

est31 marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2022 20:03

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch from b7635c9 to a84d190 Compare July 16, 2022 10:45

est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2022

Stabilize let else #93628

Merged

Mark-Simulacrum reviewed Jul 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rust-highfive assigned pnkfelix and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Jul 23, 2022

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch 2 times, most recently from 2d730aa to 024ba56 Compare July 24, 2022 00:16

camsteffen reviewed Jul 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2022

Let-else does not drop temporaries at the end of the statement #98672

Closed

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch from 024ba56 to 9c8d2bd Compare July 30, 2022 15:00

est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2022

let-else: break out to one scope higher for let-else #99954

Merged

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch from 9c8d2bd to 4300d12 Compare August 10, 2022 17:44

This was referenced Aug 10, 2022

"temporary value dropped while borrowed" occurs with let-chains #100276

Closed

Add two let else regression tests #100443

Merged

est31 changed the title ~~Add more let else tests~~ Add let else drop order tests Aug 12, 2022

est31 mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2022

Add tests for the drop behavior of some control flow constructs #100526

Merged

pnkfelix reviewed Aug 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch 2 times, most recently from 44d6934 to b9e9b80 Compare August 30, 2022 21:04

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch 2 times, most recently from b5fc113 to eb1cc63 Compare September 5, 2022 02:01

est31 marked this pull request as ready for review September 5, 2022 02:04

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

joshtriplett reviewed Sep 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

joshtriplett reviewed Sep 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

joshtriplett reviewed Sep 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

est31 force-pushed the let_else_tests branch from eb1cc63 to 2d8460e Compare September 5, 2022 11:06

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 5, 2022

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2022

Rollup of 6 pull requests #101452

Closed

This was referenced Sep 5, 2022

Rollup of 8 pull requests #101463

Closed

Rollup of 7 pull requests #101464

Merged

bors merged commit 0e6747f into rust-lang:master Sep 6, 2022

rustbot added this to the 1.65.0 milestone Sep 6, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add let else drop order tests #99291

Add let else drop order tests #99291

est31 commented Jul 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rust-highfive commented Jul 15, 2022

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jul 23, 2022

est31 commented Jul 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

camsteffen Jul 28, 2022

est31 Jul 28, 2022

camsteffen Jul 28, 2022

est31 Jul 28, 2022

camsteffen Jul 29, 2022

est31 Jul 29, 2022

est31 Jul 29, 2022

est31 Jul 30, 2022

est31 commented Aug 12, 2022

pnkfelix Aug 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

est31 Aug 23, 2022

est31 commented Sep 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

This comment has been minimized.

est31 commented Sep 5, 2022

joshtriplett commented Sep 5, 2022

bors commented Sep 5, 2022

Add let else drop order tests #99291

Add let else drop order tests #99291

Conversation

est31 commented Jul 15, 2022 • edited Loading

rust-highfive commented Jul 15, 2022

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jul 23, 2022

est31 commented Jul 24, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

est31 commented Aug 12, 2022

pnkfelix Aug 23, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

est31 commented Sep 5, 2022 • edited Loading

This comment has been minimized.

est31 commented Sep 5, 2022

joshtriplett commented Sep 5, 2022

bors commented Sep 5, 2022

est31 commented Jul 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

est31 commented Jul 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

pnkfelix Aug 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

est31 commented Sep 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading