From 698f8c2f01ea549d77d7dc3338a12e04c11057b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:02:58 +0200 Subject: Adding upstream version 1.64.0+dfsg1. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- .../diagnostics/repr_packed.rs | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/diagnostics/repr_packed.rs (limited to 'src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/diagnostics/repr_packed.rs') diff --git a/src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/diagnostics/repr_packed.rs b/src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/diagnostics/repr_packed.rs new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1488f3296 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/diagnostics/repr_packed.rs @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +// edition:2021 + +// Given how the closure desugaring is implemented (at least at the time of writing this test), +// we don't need to truncate the captured path to a reference into a packed-struct if the field +// being referenced will be moved into the closure, since it's safe to move out a field from a +// packed-struct. +// +// However to avoid surprises for the user, or issues when the closure is +// inlined we will truncate the capture to access just the struct regardless of if the field +// might get moved into the closure. +// +// It is possible for someone to try writing the code that relies on the desugaring to create a ref +// into a packed-struct. Here we test that the compiler still detects that case. +fn test_missing_unsafe_warning_on_repr_packed() { + #[repr(packed)] + struct Foo { x: String } + + let foo = Foo { x: String::new() }; + + let c = || { + println!("{}", foo.x); + //~^ ERROR: reference to packed field is unaligned + //~| WARNING: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out + let _z = foo.x; + }; + + c(); +} + +fn main() { + test_missing_unsafe_warning_on_repr_packed(); +} -- cgit v1.2.3