Adding upstream version 1.64.0+dfsg1.upstream/1.64.0+dfsg1

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 42 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/test/ui/lint/rfc-2383-lint-reason/expect_lint_from_macro.rs b/src/test/ui/lint/rfc-2383-lint-reason/expect_lint_from_macro.rs
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..07c60fa0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/ui/lint/rfc-2383-lint-reason/expect_lint_from_macro.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+// check-pass
+
+#![feature(lint_reasons)]
+
+#![warn(unused_variables)]
+
+macro_rules! trigger_unused_variables_macro {
+    () => {
+        let x = 0;
+        //~^ WARNING unused variable: `x` [unused_variables]
+        //~| WARNING unused variable: `x` [unused_variables]
+    };
+}
+
+pub fn check_macro() {
+    // This should trigger the `unused_variables` from inside the macro
+    trigger_unused_variables_macro!();
+}
+
+// This should be fulfilled by the macro
+#[expect(unused_variables)]
+pub fn check_expect_on_item() {
+    trigger_unused_variables_macro!();
+}
+
+pub fn check_expect_on_macro() {
+    // This should be fulfilled by the macro
+    #[expect(unused_variables)]
+    trigger_unused_variables_macro!();
+
+    // FIXME: Lint attributes currently don't work directly on macros, and
+    // therefore also doesn't work for the new `expect` attribute. This bug
+    // is being tracked in rust#87391. The test will until then produce two
+    // warnings about the unused variable x.
+    //
+    // The expectation is still marked as fulfilled. I'm not totally why but
+    // my guess is that this will remain working when rust#87391 has been fixed.
+}
+
+fn main() {
+
+}