1 files changed, 46 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/cycles/inductive-not-on-stack.rs b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/cycles/inductive-not-on-stack.rs
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f2f6e009d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/cycles/inductive-not-on-stack.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// compile-flags: -Znext-solver
+#![feature(rustc_attrs, trivial_bounds)]
+
+// We have to be careful here:
+//
+// We either have the provisional result of `A -> B -> A` on the
+// stack, which is a fully coinductive cycle. Accessing the
+// provisional result for `B` as part of the `A -> C -> B -> A` cycle
+// has to make sure we don't just use the result of `A -> B -> A` as the
+// new cycle is inductive.
+//
+// Alternatively, if we have `A -> C -> A` first, then `A -> B -> A` has
+// a purely inductive stack, so something could also go wrong here.
+
+#[rustc_coinductive]
+trait A {}
+#[rustc_coinductive]
+trait B {}
+trait C {}
+
+impl<T: B + C> A for T {}
+impl<T: A> B for T {}
+impl<T: B> C for T {}
+
+fn impls_a<T: A>() {}
+
+// The same test with reordered where clauses to make sure we're actually testing anything.
+#[rustc_coinductive]
+trait AR {}
+#[rustc_coinductive]
+trait BR {}
+trait CR {}
+
+impl<T: CR + BR> AR for T {}
+impl<T: AR> BR for T {}
+impl<T: BR> CR for T {}
+
+fn impls_ar<T: AR>() {}
+
+fn main() {
+    impls_a::<()>();
+    //~^ ERROR overflow evaluating the requirement `(): A`
+
+    impls_ar::<()>();
+    //~^ ERROR overflow evaluating the requirement `(): AR`
+}