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 --- ...-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/test/ui/unsafe/issue-85435-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs (limited to 'src/test/ui/unsafe/issue-85435-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs') diff --git a/src/test/ui/unsafe/issue-85435-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs b/src/test/ui/unsafe/issue-85435-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs new file mode 100644 index 000000000..72f7b6747 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/ui/unsafe/issue-85435-unsafe-op-in-let-under-unsafe-under-closure.rs @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +// check-pass +// revisions: mir thir +// [thir]compile-flags: -Z thir-unsafeck + +// This is issue #85435. But the real story is reflected in issue #85561, where +// a bug in the implementation of feature(capture_disjoint_fields) () was +// exposed to non-feature-gated code by a diagnostic changing PR that removed +// the gating in one case. + +// This test is double-checking that the case of interest continues to work as +// expected in the *absence* of that feature gate. At the time of this writing, +// enabling the feature gate will cause this test to fail. We obviously cannot +// stabilize that feature until it can correctly handle this test. + +fn main() { + let val: u8 = 5; + let u8_ptr: *const u8 = &val; + let _closure = || { + unsafe { + let tmp = *u8_ptr; + tmp + + // Just dereferencing and returning directly compiles fine: + // *u8_ptr + } + }; +} -- cgit v1.2.3