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, 47 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/test/ui/structs-enums/field-destruction-order.rs b/src/test/ui/structs-enums/field-destruction-order.rs
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a75a742d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/ui/structs-enums/field-destruction-order.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+// run-pass
+#![allow(dead_code)]
+#![allow(non_upper_case_globals)]
+
+// In theory, it doesn't matter what order destructors are run in for rust
+// because we have explicit ownership of values meaning that there's no need to
+// run one before another. With unsafe code, however, there may be a safe
+// interface which relies on fields having their destructors run in a particular
+// order. At the time of this writing, std::rt::sched::Scheduler is an example
+// of a structure which contains unsafe handles to FFI-like types, and the
+// destruction order of the fields matters in the sense that some handles need
+// to get destroyed before others.
+//
+// In C++, destruction order happens bottom-to-top in order of field
+// declarations, but we currently run them top-to-bottom. I don't think the
+// order really matters that much as long as we define what it is.
+
+
+struct A;
+struct B;
+struct C {
+    a: A,
+    b: B,
+}
+
+static mut hit: bool = false;
+
+impl Drop for A {
+    fn drop(&mut self) {
+        unsafe {
+            assert!(!hit);
+            hit = true;
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+impl Drop for B {
+    fn drop(&mut self) {
+        unsafe {
+            assert!(hit);
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+pub fn main() {
+    let _c = C { a: A, b: B };
+}