1 files changed, 0 insertions, 43 deletions
diff --git a/tests/ui/rfc-1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns/issue-62307-match-ref-ref-forbidden-without-eq.rs b/tests/ui/rfc-1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns/issue-62307-match-ref-ref-forbidden-without-eq.rs
deleted file mode 100644
index 46d8ee3b6..000000000
--- a/tests/ui/rfc-1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns/issue-62307-match-ref-ref-forbidden-without-eq.rs
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-// RFC 1445 introduced `#[structural_match]`; this attribute must
-// appear on the `struct`/`enum` definition for any `const` used in a
-// pattern.
-//
-// This is our (forever-unstable) way to mark a datatype as having a
-// `PartialEq` implementation that is equivalent to recursion over its
-// substructure. This avoids (at least in the short term) any need to
-// resolve the question of what semantics is used for such matching.
-// (See RFC 1445 for more details and discussion.)
-
-// Issue 62307 pointed out a case where the structural-match checking
-// was too shallow.
-#![warn(indirect_structural_match, nontrivial_structural_match)]
-// run-pass
-
-#[derive(Debug)]
-struct B(i32);
-
-// Overriding `PartialEq` to use this strange notion of "equality" exposes
-// whether `match` is using structural-equality or method-dispatch
-// under the hood, which is the antithesis of rust-lang/rfcs#1445
-impl PartialEq for B {
-    fn eq(&self, other: &B) -> bool { std::cmp::min(self.0, other.0) == 0 }
-}
-
-fn main() {
-    const RR_B0: & & B = & & B(0);
-    const RR_B1: & & B = & & B(1);
-
-    match RR_B0 {
-        RR_B1 => { println!("CLAIM RR0: {:?} matches {:?}", RR_B1, RR_B0); }
-        //~^ WARN must be annotated with `#[derive(PartialEq, Eq)]`
-        //~| WARN this was previously accepted
-        _ => { }
-    }
-
-    match RR_B1 {
-        RR_B1 => { println!("CLAIM RR1: {:?} matches {:?}", RR_B1, RR_B1); }
-        //~^ WARN must be annotated with `#[derive(PartialEq, Eq)]`
-        //~| WARN this was previously accepted
-        _ => { }
-    }
-}